Bishops' Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe (Medieval Church Studies, 44) 9782503579108, 2503579108

Table of contents :
Front Matter
Sarah E. Thomas. Introduction
Katherine Harvey. Understanding the Appeal of the Courtier Bishop in Thirteenth-Century England
Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar. Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)
Stefano G. Magni. Bishops, Nepotism, and Social Mobility in Central and Northern Italy in the Fourteenth Century
Christine Barralis. The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510: From Chapter’s Men to King’s Men
Jacek Maciejewski. Premeditation and Determination on the Way to the Polish Episcopacy in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries
Aída Portilla González. Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile: The Cathedral Chapter at Sigüenza (Fourteenth – Fifteenth Centuries)
Steinar Imsen. The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province: Metropolitan Authority and Relations with their Suffragans
Jacopo Paganelli. The Scolari Family at the Head of the Bishopric of Volterra (1261–1269)
Fernando Gutiérrez Baños. Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324): A New Bishop for a New Erain Salamanca
Susana Guijarro. Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval Castile: The Bishop of Burgos, Luis de Acuña (1456–1495)
Fabrizio Pagnoni. Episcopal Appointments in Northern Italy during the Papacy of John XXII
Mišo Petrović. Episcopal Appointments and Careers of the Archbishops of Split (1294–1426)
Kirsi Salonen. Between Uppsala and Rome: Swedish Bishops’ Contacts with the Papal Curia in the Late Middle Ages
Index

Citation preview

Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe

MEDIEVAL CHURCH STUDIES

Editorial Board under the auspices of the Department of History, University of Nottingham Ross Balzaretti, Peter Darby, Rob Lutton, Claire Taylor

Previously published volumes in this series are listed at the back of the book. Volume 44

Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe

Edited by

Sarah E. Thomas

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

© 2021, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

ISBN: 978-2-503-57910-8 e-ISBN: 978-2-503-57911-5 DOI: 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.114823 ISSN: 1378-868X e-ISSN: 2294-8449 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper D/2021/0095/237

Contents

List of Illustrations

vii

Acknowledgements

ix

Introduction

1

SARAH E. THOMAS

Part I. Cohorts of Bishops Understanding the Appeal of the Courtier Bishop in Thirteenth-Century England KATHERINE HARVEY

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289) HERMÍNIA VASCONCELOS VILAR

Bishops, Nepotism, and Social Mobility in Central and Northern Italy in the Fourteenth Century STEFANO G. MAGNI

The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510: From Chapter’s Men to King’s Men CHRISTINE BARRALIS

15

37

65

85

Contents

vi

Part II. Episcopal Networks Premeditation and Determination on the Way to the Polish Episcopacy in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries JACEK MACIEJEWSKI 107 Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile: The Cathedral Chapter at Sigüenza (Fourteenth – Fifteenth Centuries) AÍDA PORTILLA GONZÁLEZ

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province: Metropolitan Authority and Relations with their Suffragans STEINAR IMSEN

121

153

Part III. Individual Bishops The Scolari Family at the Head of the Bishopric of Volterra (1261–1269) JACOPO PAGANELLI

Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324): A New Bishop for a New Era in Salamanca FERNANDO GUTIÉRREZ BAÑOS

Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval Castile: The Bishop of Burgos, Luis de Acuña (1456–1495) SUSANA GUIJARRO

179

199

223

Part IV. Bishops and the Papacy Episcopal Appointments in Northern Italy during the Papacy of John XXII FABRIZIO PAGNONI

Episcopal Appointments and Careers of the Archbishops of Split (1294–1426) MIŠO PETROVIĆ

Between Uppsala and Rome: Swedish Bishops’ Contacts with the Papal Curia in the Late Middle Ages KIRSI SALONEN

Index

243

263

289 307

List of Illustrations

Diagrams Diagram 6.1, p. 134. Mendoza’s Social Network. Diagram 6.2, p. 136. Bernardino López de Carvajal’s Social Network. Diagram 10.1, p. 228. Bishop Acuña’s kinship and patronage networks. Figures Figure 9.1, p. 200. ‘Tomb of Pedro Pérez de Monroy (d. 1322–1324), Bishop of Salamanca’, Salamanca, Old Cathedral, chapel of San Nicolás. c. 1330–1340 Figure 9.2, p. 204. ‘Seal of Pedro Pérez de Monroy (d.  1322–24), Bishop of Salamanca (impression dated 1322)’, España, Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Archivo Histórico Nacional, SIGIL-SELLO, C.81, N.1. Figure 9.3, p. 208. ‘House of Nuño Pérez de Monroy (d.  1326), Abbot of Santander’, Plasencia (Cáceres). Figure 9.4, p. 208. ‘Castle of the Monroy family’, Monroy (Cáceres). Figure 9.5, p. 213. ‘Wall paintings of the tomb of Pedro Pérez de Monroy (d. 1322–24), Bishop of Salamanca’, Salamanca, Old Cathedral, chapel of San Nicolás. Figure 9.6, p. 214. ‘Tomb ascribed to Diego Fernández (d. 1320–21), Bishop of Lamego and Zamora and former Dean of Salamanca’, Salamanca, Old Cathedral, south transept. c. 1310–1320.

viii

list of Illustrations

Maps Map 6.1, p. 124. Diocesan Hispanic Geography, 1250–1500. Map 7.1, p. 155. The eleven dioceses of the Nidaros province consisted of c. 1900 parish churches in 1300, a minimum number, and forty-four monasteries. Map 9.1, p. 206. The Iberian peninsula in the early fourteenth century, with major places cited in the text. Tables Table 4.1, p. 91. Translations to and from the see of Meaux. Table 4.2, p. 93. Appointments of the Bishops of Meaux. Table 6.1, p. 140. Types of Appointment. Table 6.2, p. 142. Interventions by the Bishops. Table 6.3, p. 144. Joint Bishop and Chapter Intervention. Table 6.4, p. 147. Bishops and Relatives in the Chapter. Table 6.5, p. 148. Mendoza's Social Network: Ties of blood/Artificial Kinship. Table 6.6, p. 148. Bernardino López de Carvajal's Social Network: Ties of blood/Artificial Kinship. Table 7.1, pp. 165–166. Appointments of bishops to Hólar, Skálholt, Kirkjubøur, and Gardar c. 1230–1370. Table 13.1, p. 293. The presence of the Swedish bishops at the papal Curia during their appointment.

Acknowledgements

T

his collection of essays has its origins in the final conference of the AHRC project ‘A Prosopographical Study of Bishops’ Careers in Northern Europe’. The conference, ‘Bishops’ Identities, Careers and Networks’, held at the University of Aberdeen on 26 and 27 May 2017, brought together twenty-six scholars to discuss bishops, their identities, careers, and networks. We encountered bishops from as far afield as Iceland, Poland, the Iberian peninsula and Italy and from both the early and later Middle Ages. The variety and geographical and chronological range of papers prompted much vibrant discussion and comparisons which we might not otherwise have considered. As the majority of papers focused on later medieval bishops, we chose to restrict the conference volume to these papers. For the conference organization, I am indebted to Jill Barber who did much of the administration including setting up the webpage for the conference and organizing the payment. Professor Stefan Brink and his team of PhD students — Michael Frost, Stefan Drechsler, Beñat Elortza Larrea, Deniz Cem Gülen, Blake Middleton, and Keith Ruiter — ensured that the sessions ran smoothly and essential supplies such as coffee and lunch arrived on time! Finally, I have to thank all the conference speakers and attendees who made it so worthwhile. The volume itself has been a pleasure to edit with contributors who, for the most part, have kept to deadlines and willingly and patiently accepted editorial changes. I have learnt so much about bishops from across Europe. It has been very rewarding, not say revealing, to edit this geographically disparate group of papers and to reflect on the parallels and differences between these bishops and those I have been researching in Scotland and Norway.

Introduction Sarah E. Thomas

B

ishops were powerful individuals who wielded significant spiritual, economic, and political influence. To be a bishop was to be a leader who might crown kings or foment rebellion. They were also players on an increasingly international stage: the period of study, from 1250 to the Reformation, saw the centralization of the Church under the papacy, and bishops therefore faced more demands for their attendance in the Curia. From the early fourteenth century onwards, candidates for bishoprics usually had to travel to Rome or Avignon in order to be appointed. Yet, at the same time, national or state structures were increasingly important with kings wanting to control who became bishops. The very nature of the international Church meant that such clerics travelled and had connections well beyond their home countries. That, combined with university education, meant that bishops were key conduits for the transfer of ideas. How men became bishops in the later Middle Ages was the key question for the AHRC project ‘A Prosopographical Study of Bishops’ Careers in Northern Europe’ which studied bishops’ identities, careers, and networks in the British Isles, Scandinavia, and the North Atlantic.1 This volume stems from the final project conference which sought to place the bishops 1

AHRC Project ‘A Prosopographical Study of Bishops’ Careers in Northern Europe’, grant reference AH/K008307/1. Sarah Thomas ([email protected]) is an academic copy-editor and a professional member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading. She was previously a lecturer in Medieval History at the University of Hull and the PI of the AHRC project ‘A Prosopographical Study of Bishops’ Careers in Northern Europe’. Her publications include The Parish and the Chapel in Medieval Britain and Norway (Boydell, 2018). Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 1–12 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120609 BREPOLS

Sarah E. Thomas

2

studied in our project within the wider European context.2 The project and the conference sought to identify which factors ensured that certain men rose to senior ecclesiastical positions. Both asked what were these clerics’ familial, social, and educational backgrounds. In studying their career paths, we considered whether there were typical career paths to the episcopacy, for example through diocesan or royal service. The chapters/conference papers here also explored the significance to future bishops of royal, papal, and lordly patronage. Bishops’ social and familial backgrounds were also a topic for discussion, examining how bishops such as William Turnbull of Dunkeld, and later Glasgow, were able to use their familial connections to key patrons to secure promotion first to important parochial benefices and latterly to episcopal success. The essays included in this volume have been organized under four related themes: the prosopography of cohorts of bishops, episcopal networks, the biographies of specific individuals, and relations with the papacy. The thirteen essays — covering bishops in England, Italy, France, Hungary-Croatia, the North Atlantic, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden — enable the reader to envisage the kinds of clerics who might be promoted to the episcopate throughout Europe. The result is to gain different insights available from different approaches while achieving geographical breadth and highlighting a range of case studies. The first approach to studying how clerics rose to episcopal power is prosopographical, that is, to study both the identity and networks of a group of individuals. Prosopography is not biography; biography is the study of the life of a specific individual, whereas prosopography examines ‘the average, the general and the “commonness” in the life histories of more or less large numbers of individuals’.3 Through studying the social context of individuals’ families and networks, prosopography allows us to assess whether an individual is typical or unusual. Prosopography aims to establish both an individual’s identity and his or her identity within a wider group or groups.4 The characteristics of the overall cohort, clearly defined, are the primary focus of the analysis, not individuals. Relevant criteria for analysis of late medieval bishops include family status, nationality, local origin, educational attainment, and finally career paths. Using these carefully defined criteria, we are able to analyse the careers of particular groups of late medieval bishops in aggregate. Thus, by seeking many details of our 2

The final project conference, ‘Bishops’ Identities, Careers and Networks’, was held at the University of Aberdeen on 26 and 27 May 2017. 3 Verboven, Carlier, and Dumolyn, ‘A Short Manual of the Art of Prosopography’, p. 37. 4 Magdalino, ‘Prosopography and Byzantine Identity’, p. 47.

Introduction

3

bishops’ families, training, and careers, we are able to analyse what is exceptional and what was the norm. Prosopography as a methodology is particularly suitable for relatively poorly documented dioceses; Paul Magdalino argued that ‘prosopography is most useful in the study of societies where the number of recorded individuals is relatively modest, and where the records do not lend themselves to the construction of major biographies’.5 Prosopography is reliant upon there being suitable sources for answering a historian’s questions about individuals within a defined cohort. However, because we study the individual within his or her context of a larger group, it allows us to undertake analysis which might not otherwise be possible because the levels of documentation concerning individuals within the group may vary considerably. Hitherto, the prosopographical study of cohorts of individuals has been fairly limited for the medieval Church, though in recent years this has begun to change. Dale Streeter’s doctoral study of French bishops in the first half of the fourteenth century marked a new way of studying the identities of high-status clerics in late medieval France, examining the identities, backgrounds, and career routes of this select group of men.6 Whilst Streeter’s work is explicitly prosopographical, studies of twelfth- and thirteenth-century bishops from England, Normandy, and Greater Anjou examined not only the bishops themselves, but also the legal and political process of their election.7 Katherine Harvey’s monograph on Episcopal Appointments in England offered valuable insights into the make-up of the English episcopal cohort in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. She identified some key changes in the composition of the medieval English episcopate, in particular the increase of royal servants ascending to the episcopacy after the introduction of papal provisions.8 Further afield from England and France, among other work the ‘Portuguese Clergy 1071–1325’ project produced an excellent edited volume bringing together scholars from Portugal, Germany, Spain, France, Hungary, the United Kingdom, and Poland.9 In contrast, prosopographical research of high-status clerics in Scandinavia and the North Atlantic has until very recently been extremely limited. The exceptions are Eldbjorg Haug’s examination 5

Magdalino, ‘Prosopography and Byzantine Identity’, p. 42. Streeter, ‘The Bishops of France from 1305 to 1352’; Streeter, ‘The Pope’s Loyal Franciscans’. 7 Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England; Peltzer, Canon Law, Careers and Conquest; Ambler, Bishops in the Political Community of England. 8 Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 178–79. 9 Carreiras Eclesiásticas no Ocidente Cristão. 6

4

Sarah E. Thomas

of the activities of minor papal penitentiaries in Scandinavia and Michael Frost’s PhD on the bishops of the North Atlantic dioceses.10 Cohorts of bishops are the particular focus of four articles in this volume. Katherine Harvey studies a subset, English courtier bishops — that is, bishops whose main role, prior to their ascension to the episcopate, was as royal servants. The courtier bishop held considerable attraction, not only to the king, but also within the cathedral chapter, and it is this appeal which Harvey examines. Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar turns to discuss the Portuguese bishops who found themselves caught between the Portuguese king and the papacy between 1266 and 1289. She argues that royal service became increasingly important for a successful clerical career, making bishops more dependent upon the Portuguese Crown. Stefano Magni argues that one strategy for a high-flying clerical career was nepotism; in fourteenth-century central and northern Italy families like the Rossi benefited from powerful relatives like Bishop Ugo Rossi. Finally, Christine Barralis examines the origins, training, and careers of the bishops of Meaux. The chapter of Meaux increasingly lost influence over the choice of bishop as the power and influence of the French Crown grew. Royal service became one of the key criteria for promotion to the bishopric of Meaux. It is clear that a key criterion for an ascent to the episcopate in England, France, and Portugal was royal service. Network history and social network analysis is arguably part and parcel, or a natural extension, of prosopography: it looks at the ties between individuals. This allows for examination of how senior clerics acted within the ecclesiastical and secular arenas. Social network analysis has four key components: firstly, individuals or actors are interdependent, not independent; secondly, the links between actors allow the transfer of information, affection, or other resources; thirdly, how these ties are structured may restrict or allow action; and finally, economic, political, and social structures are circumscribed by the ties between actors.11 Undertaking network analysis facilitates the evaluation of an individual’s horizontal, that is, links at the same level, and vertical, either above or below, connections. Historians can also seek to determine network densities and typical contacts, ‘offering an insight into the social and political dynamics of a specific society’.12 This methodology provides a means of analysing the common connections, relationships, and interactions of individuals and/or groups.13 10 Haug, ‘Minor Papal Penitentiaries of Dacia’; Frost, ‘A Prosopographical Study of Bishops’ Careers in Northern Europe’. 11 Wetherell, ‘Historical Social Network Analysis’, p. 126. 12 Verboven, Carlier, and Dumolyn, ‘A Short Manual of the Art of Prosopography’, p. 46. 13 Knappett, An Archaeology of Interactions, p. 57.

Introduction

5

Considering an individual’s friendship and patronage networks allows scholars to understand their roles in wider society. The use of social network analysis by medieval historians has been patchy; although there is strong interest in networks, engagement with the theory and methodology has been less comprehensive. Christine Carpenter’s 1994 article on ‘Gentry and Community in Medieval England’ discussed social network analysis and used the terminology, but she did not use the approach again and subsequent studies by other historians such as Polden on the same topic also did not use network analysis.14 Friendship networks in medieval Europe have been analysed using social network theory by Julian Haseldine.15 The research potential and problems of using social network analysis on datasets which may be incomplete is also discussed by Haseldine in an unpublished position paper.16 Other subjects which have been deemed suitable for network analysis include patterns of trade, migration, religious practices, and intellectual networks. For example, Ysebaert demonstrated how Archbishop William of Champagne used his personal contacts to advance the Capetian King Philip II Augustus’s struggle against the Flemish counts.17 A number of historical projects with largescale prosopographical databases have been experimenting with social network analysis; one example is Rachel Stone’s consideration of the possibility of social network analysis on ‘The Making of Charlemagne’s Europe, 768–814’. ‘The Transformation of Gaelic Scotland in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’ project used the ‘People of Medieval Scotland’ database to undertake social network analysis on the intensity of social relationships. The scholars who undertook this social network analysis were able to assess the density of individual networks; they demonstrated that two bishops who on the face of it appear quite similar — Bishop Andrew of Caithness (d. 1184) and Bishop Matthew of Aberdeen (d.  1199) — had very different network densities. 18 Although they were near contemporaries and appear quite similar, Bishop Matthew had a much larger network compared with Bishop Andrew and Matthew’s network was less dense since he witnessed a greater variety of charters, including royal, ecclesiastical, and private documents. Hammond argues that ‘what Matthew’s low density is pointing to here is that he had an importance which is not fully 14

Carpenter, ‘Gentry and Community in Medieval England’; Polden, ‘The Social Networks of Buckinghamshire Gentry’. 15 Haseldine, ‘Friendship Networks in Medieval Europe’. 16 Haseldine, ‘Medieval Friendship and Social Networks’. 17 Ysebaert, ‘The Power of Personal Networks’, p. 181. 18 Hammond, Social Network Analysis and the People of Medieval Scotland, p. 501.

Sarah E. Thomas

6

captured by simply his titles and positions’.19 Social network analysis here is therefore able to identify a potential broker in society and how such an individual might therefore have acted between different sections or interests in society. Family connections and personal networks are the focus of two contributions to this book by Jacek Maciejewski and Aída Portilla González. In medieval Poland, Maciejewski’s study shows that noble families used their familial connections to support and prepare their relatives for promotion to the episcopate. Bishops Bodzęta and Jan Doliwa both came from the Doliwa noble family; Jan Doliwa owed his promotion to Bodzęta. The social networks of the bishop and chapter of Sigüenza are the focus of González’s chapter. She argues, using social network analysis, that Sigüenza’s chapter was composed of clerics who had close connections to powerful men in medieval Castile such as Cardinals Mendoza and Bernandino López de Carvajal. The final contribution to this section by Steinar Imsen considers the ecclesiastical networks of the archbishops of Nidaros; he demonstrates how contacts between the insular bishops and their metropolitan diminished with only occasional visits to Norway by insular bishops after 1350. The studies therefore bring out different ways of considering networks, and also that there were varied patterns in how and which bishops were appointed. An alternative approach to prosopographical studies of cohorts of bishops and to network analysis is to study individual bishops in greater depth. This biographical approach enables the detailed analysis of networks, backgrounds, and contributions to political and ecclesiastical affairs. This is a form of historical biography which allows the historian to place ‘the life and accomplishments of individual actors within the larger forces of regional and global history’.20 Biography has frequently been dismissed as not history or at the very least an inferior kind of history because it only studies one life and it is frequently undertaken by non-academics whose work lacks the thoroughness of formally trained historians.21 According to David Nasaw, a historian’s objective is not to give a cradle-to-grave account of an individual, but to set that person ‘in the study of the world outside that individual and to explore how the private informs the public and vice versa’.22 Historians’ attitudes to biography began to change from the 1970s onwards, marked by significant works such as Kathryn Kish Sklar’s study Catharine Beecher: A Study in Domesticity (1973). Kish Sklar argued that this was a study not merely of one individual, but of the mid-nineteenth century 19 20 21 22

Hammond, Social Network Analysis and the People of Medieval Scotland, p. 467. Rotberg, ‘Biography and Historiography’, p. 320. Banner, ‘Biography as History’, p. 580. Nasaw, ‘Historians and Biography: Introduction’, p. 574.

Introduction

7

through the life of Catharine Beecher.23 In the 1970s, historical biographies predominantly focused on women, though increasingly other groups too merited similar attention.24 In the 1980s and 1990s historical biographies also linked with another historical methodology, that of microhistories of communities, families, or individuals. These had developed in Italy in the 1970s by Carlo Ginzburg and Giovanni Levi and had a similar approach.25 Nonetheless, despite the increasing popularity of biography as a methodology for historians, there are those, such as Ian Kershaw, who argue that biography does not allow such significant analysis. Kershaw assumes that the subjects of biographical history will be prominent individuals, predominantly men, and that the biography can shed light on their motivations, actions, and views, but not on the wider longterm processes.26 Kershaw’s limiting of who can be the subject of a biography is misguided and is based on his narrow definition of biography. For our subject area and era, biography where the author uses the life of a specific individual to demonstrate wider social patterns or to reveal the nature of their wider society is highly relevant and often very revealing. The papers in this volume by Paganelli, Gutiérrez Baños, and Guijarro demonstrate how fruitful delving into one individual’s family, career, and actions during their episcopate can be. In the first paper, Jacopo Paganelli examines how Bishop Alberto Scolari and his family consolidated their power in the rural lordship of Volterra in Tuscany in the mid-thirteenth century. He demonstrates that Scolari deliberately strengthened his position by admitting members of another powerful Ghibelline Florentine aristocratic family into his entourage as well as including his own family members. The starting point for Fernando Gutiérrez Baños’s chapter is an episcopal tomb in the chapel of San Nicolás in the Old Cathedral of Salamanca in Spain which he convincingly identifies as that of Bishop Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–24). He examines his family origins and connections to the Castilian royal court and his ascent to the Salamancan episcopal throne, in addition to his analysis of the iconography of the tomb. We then move from fourteenth-century Salamanca north-east to Burgos in the fifteenth century and the long-serving Bishop Luis de Acuña. Susana Guijarro analyses how he attained his bishopric through his family, patronage, and clientelism. He was actively involved in the politics of the Kingdom of Castile, choosing sides according to his kinship and client ties. During his extended 23 24 25 26

Caine, Biography and History, p. 23. Caine, Biography and History, p. 24. Caine, Biography and History, p. 24. Caine, Biography and History, p. 25.

Sarah E. Thomas

8

reign, he succeeded in placing clerics from his familial and client networks in the cathedral chapter of Burgos. These three chapters successfully place these individuals in their wider contexts; they demonstrate how important a cleric’s personal networks were for advancement. One key feature of the late medieval Church was the growth of papal power. During the fourteenth century, the administration and organization of the Church was centralized under the Avignonese popes. A change of particular relevance to future bishops was the papal provision of bishops. Clement IV’s bull Licet Ecclesiarum, of 1265, had laid out the principle that all bishoprics belonged to the papacy, meaning that the pope might choose who to appoint when the bishopric fell vacant, though in practice only those bishoprics which were vacant because the incumbent had died at the Curia were reserved to the pope.27 By the early fourteenth century, the system for papal provisions was nearly complete, extending to almost all bishoprics.28 It did not mean that election by the chapter ceased entirely or became invalid, but it reduced its significance. Andrew Barrell has argued election now served to act as a guide to the pope as to who might be appointed.29 That was not to say that the pope had to accept the bishop elect, and there are certainly many cases where the pope appointed an alternative. The historiography of papal provisions divides into two camps: the first, represented by historians such as Guillaume Mollat, Bernard Guillemain, and Walter Ullmann, interpreting the growth of papal provisions as the result of a determined effort to expand papal power and increase financial gains, the second camp emphasizing the importance of the supplicants to the papacy and increasing requests to the papacy to intervene and award benefices.30 Based on this interpretation, the expansion of the papal administration was partly in response to the demand for their services. Papal provision of bishops is covered in a number of papers in this volume: for example, Christine Barralis highlights how closely connected many of the bishops provided by the pope in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were to the French Crown, and she argues that this was ‘a mark of favour from the pope to the king’. The final three contributions consider the role of the papacy in the appointment of bishops and the evidence for contact between faraway bishops and the popes. These chapters by Pagnoni, Petrović, and Salonen effectively consider what impact the growth of papal power had on bishops in 27 28 29 30

Barraclough, Papal Provisions, p. 9. Smith, ‘The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe’, p. 111. Barrell, The Papacy, Scotland & Northern England, p. 192. Smith, ‘The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe’, pp. 114 and 115–17.

Introduction

9

northern Italy, Split, and Sweden respectively. Fabrizio Pagnoni argues that the policies of Pope John XXII significantly changed the composition of the Italian episcopate. A large group of bishops had undertaken some form of papal service in roles ranging from chaplains to ambassadors for the Apostolic See. In contrast to the comparative homogeneity of the Italian bishops, the archbishops of Split studied by Mišo Petrović had varied backgrounds. Petrović suggests that whilst the successful candidates for the archbishopric owed their appointment to their connections to the papacy, this was not the result of a deliberate policy by the popes, but rather a response to local communities’ and secular authorities’ requests. Similarly, Kirsi Salonen argues that papal involvement in the selection of Swedish bishops in the second half of the fifteenth century was limited to the confirmation of the election if the appropriate documentation was provided. The Swedish bishops, Salonen demonstrates, were not obliged to travel to Rome for their papal confirmation, but they were expected to visit the papal Curia every three years. Many simply ignored this obligation or sent representatives on their behalf. However, ignoring the papacy could trigger significant censure; Bishop Kort Bitz of Turku had to petition for absolution and dispensation because he had failed to keep to his oath that he would visit the Curia every three years.

Becoming a Bishop The picture which has emerged of the types of men who became bishops in later medieval Europe is a complex one, depending on the location and period. There are some common features such as the increasing importance of royal service in making an episcopal career more likely. From Portugal to England via France, an astute career choice for an aspiring bishop was to serve the Crown in some capacity. Cathedral chapters too, where they had a role in episcopal selection, might not baulk at men who were likely to be experienced administrators who would competently run the diocese. High-flying clerical careers could also be achieved through family connections; for instance, nepotism in late medieval northern Italy was a key factor for some episcopal promotions. In medieval Poland, it was extremely difficult for non-nobles to gain bishoprics since noble clerics used their familial connections to help them en route to the episcopate. The use of family connections to aid episcopal promotion is also encountered in late medieval Spain. In sum, becoming a bishop was realistically open to a limited field of candidates, and the evidence suggests that social mobility via the episcopate was restricted to some unusual individuals such as Bishop Jan Muscata of Cracow. These conclusions from principally mainland European dioceses tally

Sarah E. Thomas

10

with our ongoing research on Scottish, North Atlantic, and Norwegian dioceses. In the Scottish diocese of Dunkeld, access to the bishopric became primarily restricted to clerics belonging to the lesser nobility — that is, the sons of untitled nobles.31 One difference between the bishops of Dunkeld and their counterparts in Meaux was royal service; apart from a small group in the mid-fifteenth century, fewer Dunkeld bishops than those of Meaux had a background as royal administrators.32 Like Meaux, higher education became increasingly important, so much so that to become bishop a Master of Arts was the minimum required with many bishops possessing additional qualifications in canon law and/or civil law.33 This volume uses four main approaches to throw fresh light on how senior clerics became bishops in late medieval Europe. It shows the potential for further research in this area and the possible advances to be made in order to understand the patterns or difference displayed here in the various case studies and countries.

31 32 33

Thomas, ‘Well-Connected and Qualified Clerics?’, p. 114. Thomas, ‘Well-Connected and Qualified Clerics?’, pp. 119–22. Thomas, ‘Well-Connected and Qualified Clerics?’, p. 116.

Introduction

11

Works Cited Ambler, S.  T., Bishops in the Political Community of England, 1213–1272 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) Banner, Lois W., ‘Biography as History’, American Historical Review, 114.3 (2009), 579–86 Barraclough, Geoffrey, Papal Provisions: Aspects of Church History, Constitutional, Legal and Administrative in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1935) Barrell, Andrew D.  M., The Papacy, Scotland & Northern England, 1342–1378 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) Caine, Barbara, Biography and History (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) Carpenter, Christine, ‘Gentry and Community in Medieval England’, Journal of British Studies, 33.4 (1994), 340–80 Carreiras Eclesiásticas no Ocidente Cristão (séc. xii–xiv) / Ecclesiastical Careers in Wes­ tern Christianity (12th–14th c.) (Lisboa: Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 2007) Frost, Michael, ‘A Prosopographical Study of Bishops’ Careers in Northern Europe, c. 1230–c. 1470’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Aberdeen, 2017) Hammond, Matthew, with contributions by Cornell Jackson, Social Network Analysis and the People of Medieval Scotland, 1093–1286 (Glasgow: University of Glasgow, 2017) Harvey, Katherine, Episcopal Appointments in England, c.  1214–1344: From Episcopal Election to Papal Provision (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014) Haseldine, Julian, ‘Friendship Networks in Medieval Europe: New Models of a Political Relationship’, AMITY: The Journal of Friendship Studies, 1 (2013), 69–88 —— , ‘Medieval Friendship and Social Networks: A Transaction-Based Approach’, position paper, November 2014; available at [accessed 31 August 2018] Haug, Eldbjørg, ‘Minor Papal Penitentiaries of Dacia, their Lives and Careers in Context (1263–1408)’, Collegium Medievale, 21 (2008), 86–157 Knappett, Carl, An Archaeology of Interactions: Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) Magdalino, Paul, ‘Prosopography and Byzantine Identity’, in Fifty Years of Prosopography: The Later Roman Empire, Byzantium and Beyond, ed. by A. Cameron, Proceedings of the British Academy, 118 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 41–56 Nasaw, David, ‘Historians and Biography: Introduction’, American Historical Review, 114.3 (2009), 573–78 Peltzer, Jörg, Canon Law, Careers and Conquest: Episcopal Elections in Normandy and Greater Anjou, c. 1140–c. 1230 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) Polden, Anne, ‘The Social Networks of Buckinghamshire Gentry in the Thirteenth Century’, Journal of Medieval History, 32.4 (2006), 371–94 Rotberg, Robert  I., ‘Biography and Historiography: Mutual Evidentiary and Interdisciplinary Considerations’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 40.3 (2010), 305–24 Smith, Thomas W., ‘The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe’, History Compass, 13.3 (2015), 110–21

12

Sarah E. Thomas

Stone, Rachel, ‘Building a Charter Database 1: The Factoid Model and its Discontents’, 11 September 2014, The Making of Charlemagne’s Europe (blog), [accessed 17 June 2020] Streeter, Dale, ‘The Bishops of France from 1305 to 1352: A  Prosopographical Study’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2002) —— ,  ‘The Pope’s Loyal Franciscans: Fifteen French Bishops in the Early Fourteenth Century’, Medieval Prosopography, 26 (2005), 183–96 Thomas, Sarah, ‘Well-Connected and Qualified Clerics? The Bishops of Dunkeld and Sodor in the Fifteenth Century’, in The Fifteenth Century XV, ed.  by L. Clark (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2017), pp. 109–24 Verboven, K., M. Carlier, and J. Dumolyn, ‘A Short Manual of the Art of Prosopography’, in Prosopography Approaches and Applications, a  Handbook, ed.  by K.  S.  B. KeatsRohan (Oxford: Unit for Prosopographical Research, Linacre College, University of Oxford, 2007), pp. 35–69 Wetherell, Charles, ‘Historical Social Network Analysis’, International Review of Social History, 43.S6 (1998), 125–44 Ysebaert, Walter, ‘The Power of Personal Networks: Clerics as Political Actors in the Conflict between Capetian France and the County of Flanders during the Last Decade of the Twelfth Century’, in Aspects of Power and Authority in the Middle Ages, ed. by Brenda Bolton and Christine Meek (Brepols: Turnhout, 2007), pp. 165–83

Part I Cohorts of Bishops

Understanding the Appeal of the Courtier Bishop in Thirteenth-Century England Katherine Harvey

I

n the early years of the thirteenth century, Gerald of Wales — cleric, former courtier, prolific author, and would-be Bishop of St Davids — set down his thoughts on the English bishops, a group of which he did not have a very high opinion. The problem, he thought, was clear: the wrong sort of man was being promoted to the episcopate, with far too many of the bishops originating from the Exchequer. Indeed, he went so far as to claim that, ‘Qui bonus est hic uectigalium accumulator, dignus est statim ut prelatus Anglicana in ecclesia magnus habeatur’ (Whoever is good at being a tax collector immediately deserves to be a great prelate in the English Church).1 In particular, he singled out for criticism Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, a man who encapsulated everything that Gerald disliked about the contemporary episcopate: Bonus uir ille scilicet Bangorensis electus vocatus fuit a claustro, ego a studio, et archiepiscopus unde? A  scaccario et quid scaccarium? Locus in Anglia publici erarii, Londoniis scilicet tabula quasi quadrata, ubi fiscales census colliguntur et computantur. Ab hoc studio, ab hoc gignasio, in quo iam senuit, ad omnes dignitatum suarum gradus, sicut omnes fere Anglicani episcopi, uocatus fuit.2

1 2

Giraldi Cambrensis, De Invectionibus, ed. by Davies, p. 114. Giraldi Cambrensis, De Invectionibus, ed. by Davies, p. 97.

Katherine Harvey ([email protected]) is a research fellow at Birkbeck, University of London. Her publications include Episcopal Appointments in England, c. 1214–1344 (Ashgate, 2014), and she is currently writing a book on the episcopal body for Oxford University Press. Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 15–36 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120610 BREPOLS

Katherine Harvey

16

[That good man, the Bishop elect of Bangor, was called from the cloister, I from the schools, and whence came the archbishop? From the Exchequer. And what is the Exchequer? It is the place of the public treasury in England, namely a square table in London, where taxes are collected and counted. This was the study, this was the gymnasium, in which the archbishop grew old, this was the training from which he was summoned to all the ranks of promotion in the Church, like all the English bishops.]

Given such unsatisfactory training, it was, Gerald suggested, unsurprising that Hubert turned out to be a deeply unsatisfactory archbishop, more interested in royal service than in his ecclesiastical duties, and unable even to listen to a sermon without making himself the butt of his better-educated clerks’ jokes.3 Gerald’s hostility to courtier bishops was undoubtedly shaped by his own experiences: he desperately wanted to be a bishop, and was elected Bishop of St  Davids in 1199, only to be thwarted in his ambitions by none other than Hubert Walter.4 Nevertheless, his views were not atypical of the time, and several other thirteenth-century clergymen expressed similar opinions. Stephen Langton, who succeeded Hubert Walter as Archbishop of Canterbury, complained about bishops who were elected not according to the will of the Holy Spirit, but according to the ‘spirit of the Exchequer in London’.5 Simon Langton, Archdeacon of Canterbury, argued against the postulation of Ralph Neville to that see in 1231, on the grounds that ‘illum curialem esse et illiteratum’ (he is a courtier and illiterate); it seems that, in Langton’s vocabulary, ‘courtier’ was as much a term of abuse as ‘illiterate’.6 Similarly, Robert Grosseteste objected to Robert Passelewe’s election as Bishop of Chichester because of the latter’s role in organizing and leading the notoriously oppressive forest eyre of 1244–45.7 Even the king was not beyond using royal service as the basis for opposition to a would-be bishop: when the long-serving royal justice William Raleigh was postulated to Winchester against royal wishes in 1240, Henry III claimed that his erstwhile favourite had ‘multo plures lingua quam alius gladio trucidavit’ (killed more men with his tongue than anyone else with his sword).8 3

Giraldi Cambrensis, De Invectionibus, ed. by Davies, pp. 101–02. For a more sympathetic overview of Hubert’s career and character, see Cheney, From Becket to Langton, pp. 32–41. 4 Bartlett, ‘Gerald of Wales’. 5 Sabapathy, Officers and Accountability in Medieval England, p. 93. 6 Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, iii, 207. 7 Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, iv, 400–401. 8 Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, iii, 494.

understanding the appeal of the courtier bishop

17

Contemporary cynicism about courtier bishops has been shared by most modern historians of thirteenth-century episcopal elections, who have typically assumed that such men would not have been elected ‘by the better judgement and free choice of their respective cathedral chapters’.9 This assumption is underpinned by truth: both Henry III and Edward I worked hard to secure bishoprics for their favoured candidates, using all the tools at their disposal to persuade cathedral chapters to elect the right man, and appealing to Rome when their wishes were thwarted. Royal candidates were almost always courtiers, and men such as Peter Aigueblanche, Aymer de Lusignan, and Robert Burnell undoubtedly owed their bishoprics to the Crown. Moreover, there were some spectacular electoral disputes during the course of the thirteenth century, which have led both medieval chroniclers and modern scholars to conclude that there was a clear Church/State divide in approaches to episcopal appointments, with the king promoting royal servants regardless of suitability, and the Church desperately trying to secure bishoprics for more deserving holy men.10 But to focus on these disputes is to mispresent the broader history of episcopal elections in thirteenth-century England, and to underplay the power of the cathedral chapter in the decades after the Freedom of Election charter (1214) enshrined its rights in English law, ushering in a golden age of relative electoral freedom.11 Of course, even in a free election a chapter might be swayed by the views of others, or decide to elect a candidate who they believed would be acceptable to the Crown, hoping to avoid trouble. Nevertheless, throughout the thirteenth century, and especially during the reign of Edward I, the majority of elections were held without uncanonical royal involvement. Moreover, the fact that electoral disputes happened demonstrates that electors were not afraid to defy royal wishes. Ultimately, the vast majority of the bishops appointed during the thirteenth century were chosen by cathedral chapters — including the majority of the courtier bishops. 9

Gibbs and Lang, Bishops and Reform, p. 88. For studies of thirteenth-century episcopal elections which broadly follow this argument, see Sweet, ‘The Control of Episcopal Elections in the Thirteenth Century’; Gibbs and Lang, Bishops and Reform, pp. 53–93; Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward, i, 259–89; Scotney, ‘An Examination of the Theory and Practice of Appointments to Bishoprics’; Evers, ‘Disputes about Episcopal Elections in the Reign of Henry III’. For my own take on the subject, which aims to present a more nuanced approach, see Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 71–125. 10 Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 76–99, examines the role of the king between 1216 and 1307, and considers the major electoral disputes of this period. 11 For the text of the charter, see Councils and Synods, ed. by Powicke and Cheney, ii.1, 40–41, and for discussion Harvey, ‘The Freedom of Election Charter’.

Katherine Harvey

18

Many previous interpretations of medieval ecclesiastical elections have assumed that the motivations of cathedral chapters were somehow purer than those of the king. In reality, their concerns were often equally pragmatic. Just as the king sought the promotion of candidates who would be useful to the Crown, so cathedral chapters favoured bishops who had something to offer them. Throughout the period under consideration, courtier bishops were elected in large numbers; they formed the largest single group within the episcopate throughout Henry III’s reign, and for much of Edward I’s, losing their dominant position only briefly in the early years of the fourteenth century.12 If we accept that cathedral chapters had significant control over the outcome of elections, then we also have to accept that cathedral chapters often chose to elect courtier bishops, rather than merely having them thrust upon them by the king. Despite the rhetoric of commentators such as Gerald of Wales, and the (justified) criticisms made of some individuals, it seems that that the courtier bishop had a certain appeal in the thirteenth century, and not just to the king. * * * Gerald of Wales’s criticisms of courtier bishops emphasized their lack of training for the job: they were, he implied, good at counting, but not much else. Yet in his denigration of such bureaucratic skills, Gerald was out of step with his time. By the early thirteenth century, the English Church was a vast institution, its activities enabled by a huge number of administrators and a rapidly growing bureaucracy, and there can be little doubt that the role of the bishop underwent a significant process of change during the course of the twelfth century.13 Writing around the year 1120, Eadmer could celebrate St Anselm’s lack of interest in business and worldly affairs: his sanctity rested largely on his spirituality and his longing to return to the cloister.14 By 1200, things had changed, such that even a saint-bishop such as Hugh of Lincoln needed to be portrayed as an effective diocesan administrator and as a provider of ecclesiastical justice.15 The effects of this transition were felt across Europe, but England’s large and wealthy dioceses had a particular need for bishops with a flair for administration, bureaucracy, and management: being Bishop of Durham was a very different task 12

Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 177–78. Cheney, From Becket to Langton is the classic account of this process. The growth of episcopal bureaucracy is perhaps best understood through the volumes of the English Episcopal Acta. 14 Eadmer, The Life of St Anselm, ed. and trans. by Southern, especially pp. 45–46, 69–71, 80–81 for references to his hatred of business. 15 Byrne, ‘Legal Learning and Saintly Authority in Thirteenth-Century Hagiography’. 13

understanding the appeal of the courtier bishop

19

to being bishop of a much smaller French or Italian diocese, or of a much poorer Scottish see.16 Moreover, the responsibilities of an English bishop extended beyond his diocese: he was expected to be an active participant in national affairs, advising the king, attending Parliament, engaging in diplomacy, playing a role in justice and local government, even concerning himself with military matters. Some bishops held major royal office even after their appointment to a bishopric.17 Not for nothing did the royal licence to elect state that the electors should choose a bishop who would be ‘useful to the king and the kingdom’.18 Being an English bishop in this period was about much more than spirituality, and it took a very skilled and experienced man to exercise this amount of power and responsibility effectively. The need for practical skills was increasingly recognized by canon law and in theoretical tracts on the conduct of elections. Arguably, the germ of the idea was to be found in the Apostolic Rule, which stated that a bishop must be ‘One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity — for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?’19 By the twelfth century, this vague sense of the necessity of leadership skills had developed into a firm requirement that a would-be bishop be capable of running a diocese. Thus Gratian’s requirements included ‘a sense of responsibility for his affairs’, which Rufinus (in his summary of Gratian) interpreted as meaning that the bishop must have enough experience of secular business to enable him to administer his diocese properly. Stephen of Tournai and Bernard of Pavia both agreed that a bishop’s scientia must include experience in administrative matters, whilst Huguccio demanded a good knowledge of both canon and secular law.20 Such sentiments were echoed in the writings of English bishops. Robert Grosseteste once quoted Bernard of Clairvaux’s long list of desirable episcopal qualities in a letter to Ralph Neville, Bishop of Chichester, including the requirement that he be ‘upright in judgment, farsighted in counsel, discreet in commands, assiduous in organization, energetic in action’.21 16

Bouchard, Spirituality and Administration, especially pp.  135–44; Graham-Leigh, ‘Hirelings and Shepherds’, pp. 1097–98; Ott, Bishops, Authority and Community, pp. 31–32; Sabapathy, Officers and Accountability in Medieval England, pp. 155–56. For a comparison between English and Italian bishops, see Brentano, Two Churches, pp. 174–237. 17 Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, p. 1. 18 Records of Antony Bek, ed. by Fraser, p. 181. 19 i Timothy 3. 4–5. For the importance of the Apostolic Rule in the later Middle Ages, see Weiler, ‘The Requirements of the Pastor Bonus in the Late Middle Ages’. 20 Peltzer, Canon Law, Careers and Conquest, pp. 48–50. 21 The Letters of Robert Grosseteste, trans. by Mantello and Goering, p. 215.

Katherine Harvey

20

In practical terms, the value placed on administrative experience is reflected in the make-up of the English episcopate: virtually every bishop of this period had previously held a high-ranking position in either royal or ecclesiastical service, which demanded significant involvement in worldly affairs.22 The term ‘courtier bishop’ is an ill-defined one, often used loosely to refer to any man with royal connections who was promoted to the episcopate — which leads to assumptions that the primary quality of the courtier bishop was his personal relationship with the king. In reality, though, with the exception of a very small number of royal kinsmen, and one anomalous physician (Nicholas Farnham, who became Bishop of Durham in 1241), courtiers who became bishops were almost always men with a strong track-record of administrative excellence: royal chancellors, senior officials of the Exchequer or the Wardrobe, and royal justices. This pattern is mirrored when we consider the identities of bishops whose backgrounds were primarily ecclesiastical. When chapters elected churchmen, they favoured senior office holders, especially archdeacons and deans.23 On the much rarer occasions when a member of the religious orders was elected, he was almost always a senior figure in his order: the prior of a cathedral priory, the abbot of another major religious house, or the provincial of an order of friars. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the cathedral chapters shared the widespread contemporary scepticism about the suitability of monk-bishops and wanted their bishops to have some experience of the world.24 Besides the benefits of administrative skill, there was a strong case to be made for bishops who had experience of royal service, and even for bishops who continued in royal service after their election. Such bishops were inevitably the focus of sharp criticism, such as Gerald of Wales’s claims that ‘they are fishers of money more than fishers of men’.25 Yet, alongside such condemnation, there existed a school of thought which suggested that clerical service to the Crown was valuable, and perhaps even necessary. In his Dialogus de Scaccario, Richard Fitz Neal (a royal administrator and Bishop of London) argued:

22

My analysis of episcopal origins is based chiefly on the tables found in the appendix to Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England. 23 Ott, Bishops, Authority and Community, pp. 31–32, makes a similar observation about the archdiocese of Reims. Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages, pp. 137–48, outlines the duties of the dean, and pp. 243–50 the role of the archdeacon. 24 Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, p. 94. 25 Gerald of Wales, The Jewel of the Church, trans. by Hagen, p. 228.

understanding the appeal of the courtier bishop

21

Ordinatis a deo potestatibus in omni timore subici simul et ocsequi necesse est. Omnis enim potestas a domino deo est. Non ergo uidetur absurdum uel a uiris ecclesiasticus alienum regibus quasi precellentibus et ceteris potestatibus seruiendo sua iura seruare, presertim in his que ueritati uel honestati non obuiant. [With all due reverence, we must subject ourselves and give obedience to the powers ordained by God, for all power comes from the Lord God. Therefore, it is perfectly proper and even suitable for clerics to serve kings, who surpass all others, and also other secular authorities, and to safeguard their rights, especially in matters which are not dishonest or dishonourable.]26

Peter of Blois, Archdeacon of Bath, was not an uncritical commentator on the Angevin court: he once wrote that ‘the courtier’s life is the death of the soul […] it is damnable in a cleric to mix in courtly or worldly affairs’. But he also argued that courtiers ‘frequently accomplish works of salvation’. He continued: I confess it is a holy thing to assist our lord the king: for he is holy and is the Lord’s anointed […] it is not only laudable but glorious to assist our lord the king, to administer the State, to be unmindful of oneself, wholly dedicated to all mankind.

The ruler’s divine qualities, and the potential benefits to society, made it incumbent upon the cleric to serve the king.27 Besides, such service was not only of benefit to the king, for the medieval acceptance of royal intervention in ecclesiastical affairs was matched by an expectation that the Church would involve itself in affairs of state. Bishops who served as chancellors are usually assumed to be royal creatures, motivated by a desire for power and patronage, and undoubtedly this was sometimes the case. But such activities could also work to the benefit of the Church, helping it to achieve its (and implicitly God’s) work. Peter of Blois’s ideal bishop was a man who was willing to intervene in secular government; indeed, he argued that a bishop who left the court completely did a disservice to his flock. Rather, he should use his wisdom and compassion to attack unjust laws and to restrain bad kings.28 Electing a bishop with strong royal connections could thus be a pragmatic act, designed to enhance the Church’s influence over secular government.29 According 26

Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. and trans. by Church and Amt, pp. 2–3. Dronke, ‘Peter of Blois and Poetry at the Court of Henry II’, pp. 194–96; see also Cotts, The Clerical Dilemma, p. 156. 28 Cotts, The Clerical Dilemma, p. 212. 29 For a case study of such capitular pragmatism, see Hoskin, ‘Diocesan Politics in the See of Worcester’, which demonstrates how the difficult relationship between Bishop William of Blois and the Worcester monks paved the way for their acceptance of his successor, Walter Cantilupe, despite the latter’s non-monastic background and strong links to the Crown. 27

Katherine Harvey

22

to Herbert of Bosham, some of those who elected Thomas Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury hoped that he would serve as ‘gratioso inter regnum et sacerdotium mediatore’ (an obliging mediator between the king and the priesthood).30 If all went well, a curial bishop (whether he resigned his secular roles or continued in royal service) could serve as a useful hinge between Church and state, bringing benefits to both parties.31 If things went wrong, a courtier bishop — wealthy, powerful, and well-connected — was well placed to stand up to the king, in a way which the English seem to have particularly expected and admired.32 Contrary to what we might assume, relatively few courtier bishops were merely royal yes-men. Throughout the thirteenth century, they worked with their fellow members of the episcopate to defend ecclesiastical rights, as attested by various chroniclers (especially Matthew Paris) and by the numerous gravamina of this period.33 Former royal administrators such as Walter Cantilupe were heavily involved in the political upheavals of Henry III’s reign, especially the Barons’ Revolt.34 * * * Despite Timothy Reuter’s characterization of post-eleventh-century bishops as ‘managers with an MBA’, the possession of administrative skills (even administrative skills honed in royal service) did not have to mean that an individual was lacking in all other episcopal virtues.35 First and foremost, it is worth remembering that, despite their secular employment, these men were clerics, in holy orders and holding ecclesiastical benefices.36 Often, they held similar offices to their ecclesiastical counterparts: prebends in cathedral chapters, archdeaconries, and even deanships. For example, Ralph Neville, Bishop of Chichester (1222–44) and Archbishop elect of Canterbury (1231–32), combined a successful career in the royal chancery with being Dean of Lichfield (1214–22); he also held a string of livings across the country and was a canon of London and of Lincoln.37 Similarly, 30

Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ed. by Robertson and Sheppard, iii, 183. Pantin, ‘Grosseteste’s Relations with the Papacy and the Crown’, pp. 204–08. 32 Weiler, ‘Bishops and Kings in England’. 33 See Councils and Synods, ed. by Powicke and Cheney; Jones, ‘Bishops, Politics, and the Two Laws’. 34 Ambler, Bishops in the Political Community of England, pp. 105–95. 35 Reuter, ‘A Europe of Bishops’, p. 38. 36 Tout, ‘The English Civil Service in the Fourteenth Century’; Davis, ‘Clerics and the King’s Service in Late Medieval England’. 37 Cazel, ‘Ralph de Neville’. 31

understanding the appeal of the courtier bishop

23

Antony Bek’s career in royal service brought him numerous prebends and livings, along with positions as precentor of York and Archdeacon of Durham, prior to his election as Bishop of Durham in 1283.38 Such careers have often, and with some justification, been viewed with extreme scepticism. The benefices these men held were, it is argued, the spoils of royal service, held in plurality and used as piggy banks by men with no real interest in the Church other than as a source of profit and status. Undoubtedly the accumulation of benefices by royal servants ran counter to ecclesiastical ideals, and they were sometimes rebuked for this. Antony Bek, for example, was warned by Archbishop Pecham that unless he at least obtained a papal dispensation for plurality, he could never be considered for a bishopric.39 Despite this, many of our assumptions about courtier clerics are problematic, and worthy of re-examination, if we are to properly understand the appeal of the courtier bishop. Critics of such bishops have often made an example of men such as Thomas Blundeville, Bishop of Norwich (1226–36), who was ordained priest the day before his consecration.40 To the modern eye, this seems like evidence that Blundeville was not committed to a clerical career and was willing to become a priest only once his bishopric was secured. But such an interpretation ignores both the importance of the hierarchy of orders within the medieval Church and contemporary norms. During the Middle Ages, becoming a priest was the culmination of a long process which often took place over a period of many years. First, a man must be tonsured, before proceeding through seven distinct grades of ordination: doorkeeper, exorcist, reader, acolyte, subdeacon, deacon, and priest. By the eleventh century, it was normal for a man to receive all the minor orders (up to acolyte) on the same day, after which he should progress through the higher orders (subdeacon, deacon, and priest) step by step. Whilst the primacy of the priesthood was not questioned, it was quite normal for a man to remain a subdeacon or deacon for many years. Indeed, a significant number of clerics never attained the priesthood.41 For many medieval clerics, their progression through the higher orders was determined by the offices to which they were appointed. According to clause 6 of the First Lateran Council (1123), ‘nullus in praepositum, nullus in archipresbyterum, nullus in decanum nisi presbyter, nullus in archidiaconum nisi diaconum ordinetur’ (no one except a priest may be ordained to the office of provost, archpriest, or dean; no one except a deacon may be ordained to 38 39 40 41

Fraser, ‘Antony Bek’. Fraser, ‘Antony Bek’. Harper-Bill, ‘Thomas Blundeville’. Barrow, The Clergy in the Medieval World, pp. 44–47.

Katherine Harvey

24

the office of archdeacon).42 In an age before the widespread production and survival of episcopal registers, it is difficult to determine how far this ruling was obeyed, but what evidence we do have suggests that the English Church conformed, since ‘all the archdeacons down to the 1190s whose orders we know were deacons’.43 Given that a majority of courtier bishops had previously been archdeacons or deans, this suggests that a majority must have reached at least the rank of deacon by the time of their election to the episcopate, although many would have been ordained priest only days before their consecration. This was the path followed by Thomas Becket. According to Herbert of Bosham’s vita, Archbishop Theobald ordained him all the orders up to subdeacon, and then deacon when he made him Archdeacon of Canterbury. Becket then remained in deacon’s orders for some years, being ordained priest the day before his consecration as archbishop.44 How far such a man felt himself to be a clergyman, and how far he would have been viewed as such by his contemporaries, is unknowable at a distance of eight centuries: perhaps courtier clerics did, as so many historians have assumed, view themselves primarily as royal servants. It is, however, worth remembering that, although a deacon was not able to celebrate Mass, he was a tonsured member of the higher clergy, and as such was expected to remain celibate.45 Adherence to such requirements surely suggests a serious commitment to the Church. When considering the clerical status of such men, it may also be instructive to compare the careers of individuals who have usually been viewed quite definitely as churchmen — many of whom were ordained to the priesthood much later than we might expect. For example, Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (1235–53), was still in deacon’s orders in 1225, by which point he was a man in his fifties with a long scholarly and ecclesiastical career behind him.46 Even Richard Wyche, the saintly Bishop of Chichester (1244–53), was not ordained until the early 1240s, when he was studying theology in Orleans and hoping to become a Dominican friar.47 42

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. and trans. by Tanner, p. 190. Brooke, ‘The Archdeacon and the Norman Conquest’, p. 120. 44 Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ed. by Robertson and Sheppard, iii, 168, 188. 45 Barrow, The Clergy in the Medieval World, pp. 47–51. The requirement that priests, deacons, and subdeacons remain celibate was another ruling of the First Lateran Council — see clause 7 in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. and trans. by Tanner, p. 191. 46 Southern, ‘Robert Grosseteste’. 47 Lawrence, ‘Richard of Wyche’; his ordination at Orleans is recorded in Ralph Bocking’s vita: Saint Richard of Chichester, ed. by Jones, p. 95. 43

understanding the appeal of the courtier bishop

25

In the light of such examples, the contention that courtier bishops could not be seen as serious clerics because they were not priests of long-standing is somewhat weakened. Other common assumptions about courtier-clerics are equally worthy of re-examination. Such men have often been criticized (both in their lifetimes and subsequently) for their flagrant pluralism and absenteeism — charges which are usually impossible to refute. But, once again, context is key, because such practices were not limited to the court. Papal dispensations for pluralism were commonplace, and thinkers such as Peter the Chanter argued that curial clerics needed to be properly provided for with benefices to prevent simony.48 Consequently, bishops with backgrounds in diocesan administration had usually been supported in the same way as their courtier counterparts, albeit on a smaller scale. For example, Richard Wyche, during his years as Edmund of Abingdon’s chancellor, was collated to the rectory of Charing (Kent) and to the prebend of Deal (St Martin’s, Dover); he continued to hold both benefices until he became a bishop.49 Although unlicensed pluralism could be a bar to episcopal office, papally dispensed pluralism was an offence so rife that it is easy to understand how a cathedral chapter might overlook such a small flaw in an otherwise suitable candidate.50 The process of overlooking such technicalities may have been made easier by personal knowledge of a would-be bishop, for it is worth remembering that many future bishops came into frequent contact with the Church during the performance of their royal duties.51 Only very occasionally do the surviving records allow us to glimpse activities which suggest that a courtier cleric, although an absentee pluralist, was genuinely interested in his benefices — but when we do, it can go a long way to explaining why a man we view solely as a royal official was considered to be a suitable candidate for the episcopate. As Dean of Lichfield, Ralph Neville was surely a very infrequent visitor to the cathedral, but his correspondence suggests that he was active in the management of its affairs. His surviving letters include references to chapter business (such as the handling

48

Baldwin, Masters, Princes and Merchants, pp. 182–83. Lawrence, ‘Richard of Wyche’. 50 For Archbishop Pecham’s campaign against the promotion of undispensed pluralists to the episcopate, see Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 103–04. 49

51

Chancery officials, for example, played an important role in the administration of royal patronage, on which see Gemmill, The Nobility and Ecclesiastical Patronage in Thirteenth­ Century England, p. 126. The administration of episcopal temporalities during a vacancy was another important point of contact: Howell, Regalian Right in Medieval England.

Katherine Harvey

26

of vacant churches). Moreover, he fulfilled one of the most important duties of a dean by attempting to improve the morals of the canons.52 Similarly, we know very little about the piety and devotional activities of courtier clerics — a deeper knowledge and understanding of which might help us to understand why certain individuals were promoted to the episcopate. Recent studies of royal piety have demonstrated that many medieval kings were deeply committed to their faith, which was not seen as incompatible with the more unsavoury aspects of secular rule.53 Similar arguments have been made for the significance of aristocratic piety, whilst studies of the medieval court have highlighted its significance as a place of religious ritual and practice.54 What of the royal administrators, the pool from which so many bishops were drawn, whose religious practices have so far gone unstudied? Given that they lived in a world where Christianity was so pervasive, the majority must have been at least conventionally pious; some must have been genuinely devout. There are fragments of evidence to support this supposition. In 1188, a year before his election as Bishop of Salisbury, Hubert Walter endowed a Premonstratensian abbey at his birthplace of West Dereham (Norfolk); the canons were to pray for the souls of the founder and his family and friends, including the justiciar Ralph de Glanville and his wife Bertha.55 Silvester of Everdon, a chancery clerk who was elected Bishop of Carlisle in 1246, had a reputation for personal piety, went on pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela in 1235, and apparently expressed doubts about accepting high spiritual office in return for service to the Crown.56 Antony Bek, Bishop of Durham (1283–1311), was reported to be a virgin.57 If Bek was indeed a virgin, then he was in possession of a quality which was highly prized by the medieval Church, and which would serve as a powerful counterbalance to his royal service for any electoral body considering him as a 52

Boussard, ‘Ralph de Neville’, p. 229. The literature on this topic is too substantial to be listed in full here, but see in particular Webster, King John and Religion; Carpenter, Henry III, pp. 273–348; Vincent, ‘The Pilgrimages of the Angevin Kings of England’; Vincent, ‘King Henry III and the Blessed Virgin Mary’; Prestwich, ‘The Piety of Edward I’. 54 Crouch, The English Aristocracy, 1070–1272, pp. 224–46; Vale, The Princely Court, pp. 220–46. 55 Cheney, From Becket to Langton, p. 38. 56 Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, ii, 494; Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, iii, 488; Summerson, ‘The King’s Clericulus’. 57 Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres, ed. by Raine, p. 64. 53

understanding the appeal of the courtier bishop

27

candidate for a bishopric.58 Indeed, his reputation could only be enhanced by the fact that his virginity had been preserved not within the confines of a monastery, but in an environment which provided ample opportunities for sin: the court.59 Post-Gregorian ideals of clerical sexuality focused in particular on the ‘battle for chastity’, the idea that a man must struggle with and overcome his physical desires.60 A cleric’s life at court posed many difficulties, but also opportunities to display one’s virtue and self-control. Arguably, a pious courtier-cleric, already inoculated against the dangers of the world, was better prepared to be a bishop than a cloistered monk with no real experience of secular temptations. Moreover, an ability to resist temptation was not the only valuable behavioural trait which was most likely to be displayed by curial candidates for a bishopric. Stephen Jaeger’s work on the courtier bishops of the Ottonian Empire has shown that these men were appointed as much for their courtliness (essentially their ability to conduct themselves appropriately) as for their administrative skills.61 Such qualities were equally valued in Angevin England, where a good bishop was expected to ‘edify your subjects with respect to their appearance, countenance, bearing, attire and gait’.62 Ideally, a bishop’s conduct should be so distinctive that it could unmask him even when he was in disguise, as when an innkeeper supposedly recognized Thomas Becket from his ‘way of eating’ and ‘the nature and posture of his body’.63 The best place to learn such behavioural skills was, of course, at court — which must have substantially enhanced the appeal of the courtier bishop.64 * * * There were, then, many practical and pragmatic reasons why a cathedral chapter might decide to elect a courtier bishop, and why they might be quite content 58

On the importance of episcopal virginity, see Harvey, ‘Episcopal Virginity in Medieval England’. 59 For sexual immorality at court, including the employment of royal whoremasters, see Vincent, ‘The Court of Henry II’, pp. 331–32. 60 Arnold, ‘The Labour of Continence’; Murray, ‘Masculinizing Religious Life’. 61 Jaeger, ‘The Courtier Bishop in Vitae’. 62 From Peter of Blois’s Canon Episcopalis, quoted in Cotts, The Clerical Dilemma, p. 207. The importance of such qualities will be further explored in my The Episcopal Body in Medieval England (Oxford, forthcoming). 63 Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ed. by Robertson and Sheppard, iii, 326–27. 64 Jaeger, The Origins of Courtliness is the classic work. For an English perspective, see David Crouch’s publications on the English aristocracy, most recently Crouch, The English Aristocracy, 1070–1272, pp. 193–207.

28

Katherine Harvey

(or at least not seriously concerned) if he combined his episcopal duties with continued involvement in secular affairs. Nevertheless, the election of a courtier as bishop did not have to be a cynical move; electing a courtier did not necessarily mean pinching one’s nose and resigning oneself to a second-rate bishop, on the grounds that it would make for a quieter life. Indeed, there could be strong ideological factors behind these appointments, which offered real hope that a seemingly unpromising candidate could turn into a good shepherd of his flock, and a champion of ecclesiastical liberties and reform. Although such bishops attracted a good deal of criticism, there were also a number of clerical authors who wrote in their defence, arguing that it was possible for a suitable courtier to transform into a model bishop. Perhaps surprisingly, one of the most passionate defences of the courtier bishop is to be found in a saint’s life: the Dominican Ralph Bocking’s hagiography of the saint-bishop Richard of Chichester. Neither author nor subject was a royal servant, and Bocking heavily criticized Robert Passelewe, the courtier who was Richard’s rival for the see. But Bocking was keen to stress that his criticisms of Passelewe should not be read as a criticism of all courtier bishops: Non me existimet quisquam, obsecro, presenti verborum serie generaliter omnes aulicos curie regie suggillare vel erga omnes sic invehi. Licet enim antiqui canones, propter quedam quibus irretiri solebant, huiusmodi curiales ad sacros ordines seu gradus ecclesiasticos assumi prohibeant, fuere tamen sepe et per Dei gratiam adhuc sunt et futuri sont nonnulli curiarum nexibus implicati ecclesiastici ordinis gradu seu dignitate prorsus non indigni. [I beg of you, do not let anyone infer from these remarks that I attack all royal courtiers in this way or inveigh against them all like this. For although the ancient canons forbid curiales of this sort to take holy orders or to receive positions in the church because of the matters in which they are often ensnared, there have nevertheless often been and, through God’s grace, still are and will continue to be some involved in the business of kingly courts who are not in any sense unworthy of a place in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.]

He named a series of biblical figures ( Joseph, Daniel, David) in support of his argument. In particular, he drew attention to a recent English archbishop whose life proved that a courtier could become a good prelate: Et, ut de nostris non sileam, quis Anglorum regi suo tempore fidelior, quis in regni negotiis sollicitior, quis vita purior, quid Christo Regi acceptior illo adleta gloriosissimo beato Thoma, egregio martire? Hic tamen cum esset aulicus, aulicorum tamen persecutiones sustinuit et gladiis occubuit. [Moreover, so that I might not be silent about our own nation, who in his own day was more faithful to the king of England, more deeply engaged in the business

understanding the appeal of the courtier bishop

29

of the realm, purer in his virtues, more beloved of Christ the King than His most glorious champion and most renowned martyr Thomas? For although he was a courtier, he nevertheless suffered persecution by courtiers, and died under blows from their swords.]65

Bocking’s optimism about courtier bishops was shared by the chronicler Matthew Paris, a monk of St Albans — most strikingly in his account of William Raleigh’s consecration as Bishop of Norwich: Cujus cum praenosticum esset, Gaudium est angelis Dei super uno peccatore poeni­ tentiam, etc. [Luke 15. 10], omnes bonam spem de ipso conceperunt; ut quasi alter Mathaeus, qui de theloneo ad apostolatum et evangelii auctoritatem, sic de curiali occupatione ad magnae sanctitatis culmen subvolaret.66 [Since the prognostic [the verse read at the consecration] of this man was, ‘There is joy amongst the angels of God over one sinner that repents’ — all conceived good hopes of him that, like another Matthew, who had risen from being a tax collector to the apostleship and to the authority of the Gospel, he would rise from courtly employment to the very height of holiness.]

Paris’s approach to the ideal of the courtier bishop was, like Bocking’s, shaped by the existence of positive models of what a courtier bishop could be, and in particular by the example of Thomas Becket. In his account of the Winchester electoral dispute of 1238–44, which resulted from Raleigh’s election against royal wishes, Paris presents this former royal justice as a Becket-like figure, persecuted and driven into exile by a tyrannical monarch who lacked respect for ecclesiastical liberties.67 Given the importance of saintly exemplars as focuses for imitation in medieval Christianity, the precedents provided by St Matthew the Apostle, Thomas Becket, and others comprised a powerful argument for accepting the courtier bishop.68 If St Matthew could be ‘taken up from the work of exacting taxes, attached to the company of the apostles, added to the group of the evangelists, and placed with the catalogue of the martyrs’, how was it possible to deny that a medieval courtier could imitate, or at least try to imitate, this example?69 And given the extent to which Becket dominated the religious imagination in England post-1170, and 65

Saint Richard of Chichester, ed. by Jones, pp. 98–99, with the translation at p. 175. Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, iii, 617–18. 67 Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, iv, 296–97, 286. Paris also wrote an evocative account of Raleigh’s good death, emphasizing his reverence for the sacrament: Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, v, 178–79. 68 Bartlett, Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things?, p. 571. 69 Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend, trans. by Ryan, p. 569. 66

Katherine Harvey

30

in particular the extent to which the Becket model shaped English conceptions of what a bishop should be, it is surely unsurprising that English clerics were willing to embrace the courtier bishop — for to fail to do so would be to deny the example provided by one of their favourite saints. Becket’s life provided not only a positive example, but also the method by which a courtier could be transformed into a model bishop: conversion. The idea of religious conversion — that is, not a change of faith, but a shift from one way of life to another, better existence, with God as its focus — was strongly attractive to many twelfth- and thirteenth-century writers.70 It was a model with wide applications: baptism and crusading could both be viewed as a form of conversion, and in the post-oblation age, entry to a monastic house was often interpreted in this way.71 Nevertheless, Becket’s transition from loyal chancellor to martyred archbishop was one of the most famous conversions of the age, and his many biographers spent a good deal of time discussing its finer points.72 Ideally, as in the case of Becket, the seeds of this good life would have been apparent in his previous existence: in the words of Anon. I, ‘geminum virum gesserit, ecclesiasticum scilicet et curialem’ (he bore the double man, the ecclesiastical and the curial) throughout his time at court.73 But promotion to the episcopate could itself have transformative powers. When the new archbishop was consecrated, he ‘mutatus in virum alterum veterum hominem cum actibus suis exuit, novumque induit in justitia et sanctitate’ (put off the old man with his acts, and put on the new man in righteousness and sanctity).74 This belief in the transformative powers of episcopacy was also expressed by the twelfth-century chronicler Orderic Vitalis, in a passage which bemoaned the appointment of men such as Ranulf Flambard, a controversial Bishop of Durham (1099–1128). In recent years, he complained, ‘shallow, unlearned men’ had often been promoted by ‘the help of powerful friends’, and several of these bishops used their position to oppress the poor and to enrich themselves. But

70

Staunton, Thomas Becket and his Biographers, p. 76. For a wider discussion of conversion in the central Middle Ages, see Morrison, Understanding Conversion. 71 Allen Smith, War and the Making of Medieval Monastic Culture, pp. 166–76; Miramon, ‘Embraser l’état monastique à l’âge adulte’. For an example of such a conversion, see Walter Daniel, The Life of Aelred of Rievaulx, trans. by Powicke, pp. 90–100. 72 Staunton, Thomas Becket and his Biographers, pp. 75–96. 73 Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ed. by Robertson and Sheppard, iv, 12. 74 Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ed. by Robertson and Sheppard, iv, 19–20.

understanding the appeal of the courtier bishop

31

Alii uero pro suscepto aecclesiastici regiminis onere diuinitus perterriti sunt; sibique commissis intus et exterius salubriter prodesse studuerunt, uitasque suas secundum beneplacitam uoluntatem Dei laudabiliter correxerunt […]. Quibus ita promotis clemens Deus parcit ac miseretur, eisque postmodum supernae ubertas gratiae infunditur, et coelestis sophyae per eos luce Dei domus illuminatur, et utilibus studiis plures saluantur. [Others, it is true, were filled with the fear of God on taking up the burden of ecclesiastical authority, endeavoured to further the well-being and salvation of those committed to their care, and reformed their lives worthily in accordance with God’s gracious will […]. After their promotion God in his mercy pities and spares them, in time filling them with the riches of divine grace, so that through them the house of God is lit with the brightness of heavenly wisdom and many find a way to salvation through useful activities.]75

* * * Orderic Vitalis’s identification of the means by which these unsuitable courtiers were transformed into good bishops highlights a factor which has been underplayed in most modern accounts of medieval episcopal elections, namely divine will. Throughout the thirteenth century, the ideal election was one achieved by way of inspiration, in which ‘everyone, all at once, suddenly and unexpectedly and unanimously elects someone, with one voice, with no previous discussion, and no human incitement having preceded this’.76 When, in 1257, the English Church complained about excessive royal intervention in elections, it claimed that ‘the frightened electors more often give preference to human wishes over the divine will’.77 Against the background of such complaints, it is easy to be cynical about the frequency with which God’s choice happened to be one which suited the king and/or the cathedral chapter. But it is perhaps more interesting to ponder the question of how many electoral bodies genuinely believed they were enacting God’s will when they elected yet another courtier bishop. Whether or not we accept the possibility of divine intervention, it is clear that royal intervention was not the only reason why a medieval cathedral chapter might choose a courtier as their bishop. Attempting a defence of the courtier bishop is perhaps a fool’s errand, since it is in many ways a defence of the indefensible; 75

The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. by Chibnall, v, 204–05. This was the definition given by William de Mandagot, Archdeacon of Nîmes and compiler of the Liber Sextus, writing in the 1280s. Tractatus universi iuris, duce, et auspice Gregorio XIII, xv.1, c. 52. 77 Councils and Synods, ed. by Powicke and Cheney, ii.1, 540. 76

Katherine Harvey

32

in many eyes, such a figure was irrevocably tainted by his years of royal service. Yet all institutions, however noble their aims, need leaders who can make things happen and get things done, and the thirteenth-century English Church was no exception. It admired Mary, whose contemplative life was reflected in the monastic tradition, and idealized the holy men and women who followed in her footsteps. But it also embraced the example of Martha, whose active life formed a model for the majority of the secular clergy.78 When electors chose a bishop, they could not know for certain whether they were getting a Thomas Becket or a Hubert Walter, or — surely the best outcome — someone in between, a man who could stand up for the Church but also get along with the king, and who was thus unlikely to end up with his brains scattered across the floor of his cathedral. In a world in which (to quote Nicholas Vincent), a bishop’s success was determined by ‘his ability to walk the tightrope that joined regnum and sacerdotium’, it is easy to see why a pragmatic group of electors might choose a man who was spiritual enough, but also in possession of the qualities needed to walk straight across without falling.79 Such choices might be criticized, but they could also be justified, by the needs of the Church, by the lessons of the past, and in particular by the example of Thomas Becket and his remarkable conversion. Perhaps fortunately, Becket was a one-off, and a courtier would rarely turn out be such an exemplary bishop. He could well, however, be the best man for the job.

78

On Mary and Martha, see Constable, ‘The Interpretation of Mary and Martha’, especially pp. 44–113. Thomas, The Secular Clergy in England, pp. 17–54, considers the models of behaviour available to the secular clergy, contrasting ‘the Model Priest’ with ‘the Aristocratic Cleric’. 79 Vincent, ‘Jocelin of Wells’, p. 33.

understanding the appeal of the courtier bishop

33

Works Cited Primary Sources Councils and Synods, with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, vol.  ii: ad 1205–1313, ed.  by Maurice Powicke and Christopher Cheney, 2  vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964) Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. i: Nicaea I to Lateran V, ed. and trans. by Norman Tanner (London: Sheen & Ward, 1990) Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. and trans. by Stephen Church and Emilie Amt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) Eadmer, The Life of St  Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. and trans. by Richard Southern (Oxford: Nelson, 1962) The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. by Marjorie Chibnall, 6  vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969–80) Gerald of Wales, The Jewel of the Church, trans. by John Hagen (Leiden: Brill, 1979) Giraldi Cambrensis, De Invectionibus, ed. by W. S. Davies, Y Cymmrodor, 30 (1920), 1–248 Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres: Gaufridus de Coldingham, Robertus de Graystanes et Willelmus de Chambres, ed. by John Raine (London: Surtees Society, 1839) Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend, trans. by William Ryan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) The Letters of Robert Grosseteste, trans. by Frederick Mantello and Joseph Goering (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010) Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed.  by James Robertson and Joseph. B. Sheppard, 7 vols (London: Longman, 1875–85) Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Majora, ed. by Henry Luard, 7 vols (London: HMSO, 1872–83) Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, 6 vols (London: HMSO, 1901–13) Records of Antony Bek, Bishop and Patriarch, 1283–1311, ed. by Constance Fraser (Durham: Surtees Society, 1953) Saint Richard of Chichester: The Sources for his Life, ed.  by David Jones (Lewes: Sussex Record Society, 1995) Tractatus universi iuris, duce, et auspice Gregorio XIII ponifice maximo in unum congesti, 25 vols (Venice, 1584–86) Walter Daniel, The Life of Aelred of Rievaulx and the Letter to Maurice, trans. by F. M. Powicke (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1994)

Secondary Sources Allen Smith, Katharine, War and the Making of Medieval Monastic Culture (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2011) Ambler, S. T., Bishops in the Political Community of England, 1213–1272 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017)

34

Katherine Harvey

Arnold, John, ‘The Labour of Continence: Masculinity and Clerical Virginity’, in Medieval Virginities, ed. by Anke Bernau, Ruth Evans, and Sarah Salih (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2003), pp. 102–18 Baldwin, John, Masters, Princes and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and his Circle, 2 vols (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970) Barrow, Julia, The Clergy in the Medieval World: Secular Clerics, their Families and Careers in North­Western Europe, c. 800–c. 1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015) Bartlett, Robert, ‘Gerald of Wales’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, —— , Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013) Bouchard, Constance, Spirituality and Administration: The Role of the Bishop in Twelfth­ Century Auxerre (Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1979) Boussard, Jean, ‘Ralph de Neville, évêque de Chichester et chancelier d’Angleterre’, Revue Historique, 176 (1935), 216–33 Brentano, Robert, Two Churches: England and Italy in the Thirteenth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988) Brooke, Christopher, ‘The Archdeacon and the Norman Conquest’, in his Churches and Churchmen in Medieval England (London: Hambledon Press, 1999), pp. 117–37 Byrne, Philippa, ‘Legal Learning and Saintly Authority in Thirteenth-Century Hagiography: The Magna vita sancti Hugonis’, Journal of Medieval History, 44 (2018), 39–55 Carpenter, David, Henry III: The Rise to Power and Personal Rule, 1207–1258 (London: Yale University Press, 2020) Cazel, Fred, ‘Ralph de Neville’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Cheney, Christopher R., From Becket to Langton: English Church Government, 1170–1213 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956) Constable, Giles, ‘The Interpretation of Mary and Martha’, in his Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 1–142 Cotts, John, The Clerical Dilemma: Peter of Blois and Literate Culture in the Twelfth Century (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2009) Crouch, David, The English Aristocracy, 1070–1272: A Social Transformation (Yale: Yale University Press, 2011) Davis, Virginia, ‘Clerics and the King’s Service in Late Medieval England’, in Église et État, Église ou État? Les Clercs et la genèse de l’État modern, ed. by Christine Barralis and Jean-Paul Boudet (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2014), pp. 25–33 Dronke, Peter, ‘Peter of Blois and Poetry at the Court of Henry II’, Mediaeval Studies, 38 (1976), 185–215 Edwards, Kathleen, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967) Evers, William, ‘Disputes about Episcopal Elections in the Reign of Henry  III, with Special Reference to Some Unpublished Durham Documents’ (unpublished B.Litt. thesis, University of Oxford, 1934)

understanding the appeal of the courtier bishop

35

Fraser, Constance, ‘Antony Bek’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Gemmill, Elizabeth, The Nobility and Ecclesiastical Patronage in Thirteenth­Century England (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2013) Gibbs, Marion, and Jane Lang, Bishops and Reform, 1215–1272 (London: Oxford University Press, 1936) Graham-Leigh, Elaine, ‘Hirelings and Shepherds: Archbishop Berenguer of Narbonne (1191–1211) and the Ideal Bishop’, English Historical Review, 116 (2001), 1083–1102 Harper-Bill, Christopher, ‘Thomas Blundeville’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Harvey, Katherine, Episcopal Appointments in England, c.  1214–1344: From Episcopal Election to Papal Provision (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014) —— ,  ‘Episcopal Virginity in Medieval England’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 26 (2017), 273–93 —— , ‘The Freedom of Election Charter’, Magna Carta Project Website (2014), Hoskin, Philippa, ‘Diocesan Politics in the See of Worcester, 1218–1266’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 54 (2003), 422–40 Howell, Margaret, Regalian Right in Medieval England (London: Athlone Press, 1962) Jaeger, Stephen, ‘The Courtier Bishop in Vitae from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century’, Speculum, 58 (1983), 291–325 —— ,  The Origins of Courtliness: Civilizing Trends and the Formation of Courtly Ideals, 939–1210 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) Jones, W. R., ‘Bishops, Politics, and the Two Laws: The Gravamina of the English Clergy, 1237–1399’, Speculum, 41 (1966), 209–45 Lawrence, Hugh, ‘Richard of Wyche’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,

Miramon, C. de, ‘Embraser l’état monastique à l’âge adulte (1050–1200): Étude sur la conversion tardive’, Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 54 (1999), 825–49 Morrison, Karl, Understanding Conversion (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1990) Murray, Jacqueline, ‘Masculinizing Religious Life: Sexual Prowess, the Battle for Chastity and Monastic Identity’, in Holiness and Masculinity in the Middle Ages, ed. by Patricia Cullum and Katherine Lewis (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2005), pp. 24–37 Ott, John, Bishops, Authority and Community in Northwestern Europe, c.  1050–1150 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015) Pantin, William, ‘Grosseteste’s Relations with the Papacy and the Crown’, in Robert Grosseteste, ed. by David Callus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955), pp. 178–215 Peltzer, Jörg, Canon Law, Careers and Conquest: Episcopal Elections in Normandy and Greater Anjou, c. 1140–c. 1230 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) Powicke, Maurice, King Henry III and the Lord Edward, 2 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947) Prestwich, Michael, ‘The Piety of Edward I’, in England in the Thirteenth Century, ed. by W. M. Ormrod (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1985), pp. 120–28

36

Katherine Harvey

Reuter, Timothy, ‘A Europe of Bishops: The Age of Wulfstan of York and Burchard of Worms’, in Patterns of Episcopal Power, ed.  by Ludger Körntgen and Dominik Wassenhoven (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), pp. 17–38 Sabapathy, John, Officers and Accountability in Medieval England, 1170–1300 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) Scotney, Phyllis, ‘An Examination of the Theory and Practice of Appointments to Bishoprics during the Reigns of Henry  III and Edward  I, and of their Historical Significance’ (unpublished master’s thesis, University of London, 1925) Southern, Richard, ‘Robert Grosseteste’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,

Staunton, Michael, Thomas Becket and his Biographers (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2006) Summerson, Henry, ‘The King’s Clericulus: The Life and Career of Silvester de Everdon, Bishop of Carlisle, 1247–1254’, Northern History, 28 (1992), 70–91 Sweet, Alfred, ‘The Control of Episcopal Elections in the Thirteenth Century’, English Historical Review, 12 (1927), 573–82 Thomas, Hugh M., The Secular Clergy in England, 1066–1216 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) Tout, Thomas, ‘The English Civil Service in the Fourteenth Century’, in The Collected Papers of Thomas Frederick Tout, 3  vols (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1932–34), iii, 191–221 Vale, Malcolm, The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North­West Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) Vincent, Nicholas, ‘The Court of Henry II’, in Henry II: New Interpretations, ed. by C. Harper-Bill and Nicholas Vincent (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007), pp. 278–334 —— ,  ‘Jocelin of Wells: The Making of a Bishop in the Reign of King John’, in Jocelin of Wells: Bishop, Builder, Courtier, ed.  by Robert Dunning (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2010), pp. 9–33 —— , ‘King Henry III and the Blessed Virgin Mary’, in The Church and Mary, ed. by R. Swanson (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2004), pp. 126–46 —— ,  ‘The Pilgrimages of the Angevin Kings of England’, in Pilgrimage: The English Experience from Becket to Bunyan, ed.  by Colin Morris (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 12–45 Webster, Paul, King John and Religion (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2015) Weiler, Anton, ‘The Requirements of the Pastor Bonus in the Late Middle Ages’, Dutch Review of Church History, 83 (2003), 57–83 Weiler, Bjorn, ‘Bishops and Kings in England, c. 1066–1215’, in Religion and Politics in the Middle Ages: Germany and England by Comparison, ed. by Ludger Körntgen and Dominik Wassenhoven, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), pp. 157–203

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289) Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar* Frater Nicholae, non est quare hic advocare debeatis, quia non summus in tempore advocandi.1

T

hese were the final words of King Afonso  III (1247–79) at his last meeting in October 1277 with Friar Nicholas Hispanus, who had been appointed legate a few months earlier by Pope John  XXI (1276–77): a sentence in direct speech, giving voice and body to the final act of a long and troubled legateship. This meeting with the monarch took place at the king’s palace in Lisbon before a wide range of witnesses, both laymen and ecclesiastics — including the heir, Dinis, and his brother Afonso, some of the most important nobles of King Afonso III’s court, several Dominican and Franciscan friars, and king’s clerics. This time the Bishop of Évora, Durando Pais, was absent, unlike previous meetings in which he had been the only bishop present.2

*

Research work carried out within the scope of UID/HIS/00057/2013 (POCI-01–0145FEDER-007702), FCT/Portugal, COMPETE, FEDER, Portugal 2020. 1 Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, p. 572. 2 The detailed account of this legateship can be found in the minutes published by Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, pp. 525–73, transcribed from an original from the National Archives of Torre do Tombo. The vicissitudes of this visit of the legate received the attention of many authors, from Herculano, História de Portugal, iii, 183–88, to Mattoso, Identificação de um país, ii, 158–60, and Ventura, D. Afonso III, pp. 153–54. Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar ([email protected]) is assistant professor at University of Évora – Portugal and research member of CIDEHUS. Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 37–64 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120611 BREPOLS

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

38

Witnesses present at this gathering, apparently the last encounter between the king and Friar Nicholas, also saw the final act of a series of (relatively unfruitful) meetings between the legate and the Portuguese king. At this meeting, Friar Nicholas intensified his last (sometimes desperate) efforts to get King Afonso III to settle his conflict with the Portuguese bishops. Afonso III died shortly afterwards, in February 1279, but the effects and vicissitudes of the final legateship were probably recorded not only in Friar Nicholas’s memory or the king’s, as protagonists of this dialogue, but also in the memories of the people who witnessed the meetings, namely Prince Dinis. The authors of Monarquia Lusitana, a Portuguese historical compilation drawn up in the seventeenth century, probably concerned with the fate of the soul and the image of the king, introduced into their narrative the royal repentance at the time of his death before Bishop D. Durando, and the heir’s exhortation to look for a quick solution regarding the conflict with the bishops.3 But it would take another ten years for a solution to be found. Indeed, the so-called second legateship of Friar Nicholas is a key moment in the conflict between the Church and the Portuguese kings of the thirteenth century. The minutes that have come down to us, relating the journey of the papal legate across the kingdom as well as his meetings with the king, are central elements in knowledge of these years of crisis and open conflict between Afonso III and the bishops. This conflict is traditionally seen as beginning in 1266/67 with the departure of the bishops of the Portuguese dioceses (except the prelates of Évora and Lamego) to the Curia and the submission of a list of grievances with fortythree articles against the monarch and his actions. And it ended, at least for many historians, with the signing in February 1289 of two agreements, one with forty articles and one with eleven. The purpose of this study is not so much to provide a detailed analysis of the contents of the list of aggravations presented by the prelates or the articles forming the signed concordats,4 but rather to highlight the importance that this conflict assumed between king and bishops and its role in the context of the end of a reign that had begun, as we shall see, with the support of the Church. In addition, we would like to stress some lines of the changing relationship between royalty and episcopate in the Portuguese context during the second half of the thirteenth century, after the halt of the Christian conquest and in a political setting marked by the reaffirmation of royal power at different levels. Hence the 3 4

Brandão, Monarquia Lusitana, Parte IV, fols 254–255v. About the use of the term ‘Concordats’, see Costa, ‘As concordatas portuguesas’.

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)

39

importance given to the episcopal group, not only as protagonists of the conflict, but also as a mandatorily diverse element of political society.5 Thus the proposed analysis focuses on two key moments in this period: the first coincides with the years in which the prelates withdrew from the kingdom to draw around them the characteristics and the path of those who left and those who remained; the second will focus on the months of Friar Nicholas Hispanus’s second legateship. The surviving records, which we have already mentioned, allow a privileged overview of the dialogue initiated between Afonso III and Friar Nicholas and, above all, of the management of the circumstances of the conflict. The final step will be a reflection around some features of the documents of 1289, considered to be the end point of this long crisis. In fact, the so-called 1289 Agreements are directly linked to the list of grievances presented in 1268 at the Curia.6 The document drafted in 1289 under the aegis of the pope gathered the previous complaints and merged them into a model with one royal response to each article of grievance. In doing so, it was possible to create a document which was acceptable to both parties and which could be kept for future memory.

Departure of the Bishops As king, Afonso III was no stranger to the Portuguese Church or to the papacy. He had risen to the throne following his brother’s removal by Pope Innocent IV, in July 1245, after the Council of Lyon and the deposition of Frederick II. But unlike the emperor with whom Innocent IV had had a struggle for power and influence, Sancho II of Portugal was dismissed as a rex inutilis,7 unable to secure peace and stability in his kingdom. To replace him, the pope then appealed to his brother Afonso, who had been educated in the French court under the protection of his aunt and mother of St  Louis, Queen Branca. While still in Paris, the chosen infante took the so-called Oath of Paris, in September of the same year, 5

For a recent example of a study on the role of bishops in a very particular political juncture and the vicissitudes of their interventions, see Ambler, Bishops in the Political Community of England; and on the preceding period, Cheney, From Becket to Langton. 6 The chronology of this presentation is uncertain, but 1268 is the year typically suggested. Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, pp. 390–91. Alexandre Herculano synthetizes the document kept in the papal archives. História de Portugal, iii, 131–40. 7 On the removal by the bull Grandi non immerito of Sancho II in 1245, see Fernandes, D. Sancho II, pp. 259–62, and Varandas, ‘Bonus rex ou rex inutilus’, pp. 381–89.

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

40

before a group of Portuguese magnates who had travelled there, thus assuring and promising to protect the Church and respect ecclesiastical freedoms.8 This oath enabled him to secure the support of a significant part of the Portuguese ecclesiastical hierarchy, particularly the Archbishop of Braga. Only after taking this oath did he go to Portugal where he assumed government with only the title of curator and regent of the kingdom, a title that he would retain until the sudden and premature death of his brother in 1248 in Toledo, the city where Sancho II was exiled after a short civil war with his brother. During the first years of his reign Afonso tried to build an image marked by gradual internal pacification and territorial consolidation of the kingdom, very different from the last years that coincided with the end of the reign of Sancho II, which were marked by internal instability and chaos, at least according to the prelates whose complaints echoed in the Curia in order to justify his deposition. The definitive conquest of the Algarve in 1249 contributed to this, as did the halt of the conquest that the addition of this second kingdom represented. The new monarch then included the new kingdom in his title, naming himself king of Portugal and the Algarve. In parallel, the reign of Afonso III was marked by a high degree of legislative activity, the scope and interventions of which consolidated the exercise of royal power on different levels. Relations with the Church appear to have been peaceful at least until the early 1260s, notwithstanding the emergence of some sectorial conflicts during the 1250s, as was the case with the Bishop of Porto over the fishing, navigation, and trade rights on the River Douro and the doubts over the marital status of the king.9 In May 1262, the Portuguese bishops sent Urban IV a request to legalize 8

The so-called Oath of Paris, to which we refer in this essay, was made when Afonso, at the time Count of Boulogne, was chosen to succeed to Sancho II after the latter’s removal. In this oath, the heir prince promised, as Leontina Ventura says, to accept the conditions ‘imposed by the ecclesiastic authority’, which included respecting the people and the clergy, suppressing injustices committed by his predecessors, hearing advice from the prelates, and obeying the Roman Church. In this manner, the Archbishop of Braga João Viegas de Portocarreiro and João Martins, representative of the Bishop de Coimbra, tried to ensure, on behalf of other prelates, that this king, unlike his father and brother before him, would not act against the Church’s will. The choice of Afonso, a prince who had left Portugal at an early age to go to France, where he spent a substantial part of his youth at the royal palace, was not random or casual. Ventura, D. Afonso III, pp. 70–71. 9 Count of Boulogne when he took his brother’s place, Afonso III was married to Matilde of Boulogne. However, in 1253 he promised to marry Beatriz, the daughter of Afonso X of Castile. His bigamy triggered the first interdict on the kingdom and several reprimands by Pope Alexander IV, albeit without visible results. Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, p. 385. This request proves that, at that time, the episcopate still supported the king.

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)

41

the marriage of Afonso III with Beatriz, daughter of Afonso X, and consequently the request for the children born of this marriage to be made legitimate, after the death of Matilde, Countess of Boulogne and Afonso’s first wife. The request, which was made by the bishops and supported by the kings of France and Navarre, as well as the counts of Anjou and Provence,10 would receive papal approval about one year later, in June 1263, thus ensuring the legitimate succession of the Portuguese throne. About four years later, in 1267, most of those same prelates made a more or less sudden departure from the kingdom to the Curia, where in the early months of 1268 they presented Clement IV with a long list of grievances. On the face of it, this strategy could not be said to be completely unknown in the Christian kingdoms. Neither the presentation of grievances nor even the appeal to the pope were seen as innovative strategies. Both England and Castile had had experience of similar attitudes in times not far removed,11 a fact that must be taken into account here when analysing the breadth and effects of this option. However, what seems salient in this case is the apparent absence of allusion to a previous conflict or attempts at internal resolution of the problems enumerated on that list. Contrary to what occurred in other neighbouring kingdoms, both the departure of the bishops and the presentation of the list of aggravations to the pope seem to emerge as attempts to solve a crisis of which scarce signs can be found in the surviving documentation and whose reasons are not always easy to attribute, as already highlighted by José Mattoso.12 Indeed, as well as this last author, Leontina Ventura has already discussed the possible reasons for this confrontation between a king who had secured Church backing upon his accession to the throne in 1245 and a group of ecclesiastics with very different profiles.13 The impact of the royal 1258 Inquisitiones must of course be stressed, especially because the central area of those enquiries was largely coterminous with the location of the dioceses whose bishops had left the kingdom. Although the Inquisitiones were not an original initiative, having been started by the king’s father in 1220, these 1258 inquests deserve special attention for their geographical scope and the evident concern with making a record of royal property and the 10

Mattoso, ‘Dois séculos de vicissitudes políticas’, p. 141. Jones, ‘Bishops, Politics, and the Two Laws’; Denton, ‘The Making of the Articuli Cleri of 1316’; and O’Callaghan, ‘The Ecclesiastical Estate in the Cortes of Leon-Castille’. 12 Mattoso, ‘Dois séculos de vicissitudes políticas’, p. 141. 13 Mattoso, Identificação de um país, ii, 158–60, and Ventura, D. Afonso III, pp. 151–54. 11

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

42

abuses it suffered.14 To this impact, we must add the effects, or the possible effects, of the law established by Afonso III in 1265 which aimed at redressing the abuses identified by the 1258 inquiries,15 despite doubts arising over the effectiveness of its implementation.16 However, it seems not everything can be explained on the basis of these two measures. Also of importance were the effects and disputes surrounding the king’s attempts to devalue the currency in 1254 and 1261 and the loan requested by the monarch in 1266 to provide military support to Afonso X of Castile. In both 1254 and 1261, the clergy were one of the parties interested in preventing or cushioning the effects of devaluation on their incomes. The king himself echoes this pressure in the letter which he sent to the pope and to the masters of the military orders in 1255, and in which he undertook the compromise of not devaluing the currency, demonstrating that this was not a problem whose repercussions were restricted to the limited scope of the kingdom.17 The impact of these measures and, above all, what they reveal about the implementation of more effective royal policies for tax and income control, must be taken into account when considering the reasons for the outbreak of this conflict. All the more so when the measures undertaken, the aim of which was closer control and more effective collection of royal income, both in terms of land exploitation and levels of tax, were accompanied by the occurrence of some poor years for agriculture, particularly in the early 1250s. It was quite possibly the effects of an agricultural crisis in 1252 or 1253 that gave rise to the issuance of the first price-fixing law in 1253 (Lei da Almotaçaria), a crisis that had an effect across all farmland income. This cannot be seen as a means to seek to affirm the emergence, based on the indications, of a foreseeable crisis or one of greater magnitude and traditionally confused with that of the late Middle 14

The bibliography of the 1258 Inquisitiones is relatively abundant, and the use of these sources in partial studies is highly significant. We may find a status report on the surveys in Andrade, ‘Les Enquêtes royales au Portugal’, and a reflection about the importance of Luis Krus’s work in the study of the surveys, as well as in establishing new lines of thought in Andrade, ‘Luís Krus e as inquirições régias medievais’. On the importance of the Inquisitiones as a governance instrument, special reference should be made to the studies collected in Pécout, Quand gouverner c’est enquêter. 15 Herculano, Portugaliae monumenta historica, i.2, 215–16, and Ventura, D. Afonso III, p. 151. 16 About these years, see also Mattoso, ‘1258–1264’, where the importance given by Portuguese historiography to the role of this king is clear. 17 Chancelaria de D. Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livre I, ii, docs 705–07, pp. 278–80.

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)

43

Ages,18 but rather the design of a particular conjuncture, where the effects arising from the previous years of chaos and manorial abuses were intertwined with the consequences stemming from the implementation of a fiscal and ownership policy which, while more assertive, was not always effective. But the apparently peaceful relationship between king and bishops referred to above and evident until the early 1260s can still be explained on the one hand by the growing tendency for royal interference in episcopal elections to choose clerics close and loyal to the king, which had necessary implications on the internal constitution of this group; on the other hand, it stems from the apparent support given by the papacy to the Portuguese king, despite the doubts that arose around his marital situation. In fact, both Innocent IV, the pope responsible for the deposition of Sancho II and soon for the confirmation of Afonso III as king after his brother’s death, and also the pope’s immediate successors show a degree of complacency in their way of dealing with the crises and complaints of the Portuguese prelates, particularly in the years before 1268. This seems to be the case with the problems already mentioned regarding the Bishop of Porto, but also the monastery of Lorvão, which Alexander IV asked the King of Portugal in 1255 to stop harassing, and the Archbishop of Braga, who was concerned about the breadth of his jurisdiction and his prerogatives before the king.19 But the same seems to occur around the conflicts that arose or developed in different dioceses throughout the 1250s and 1260s. Added to the conflicts stirred up by the disputed episcopal elections, as in Viseu and Lisbon, were the effects derived from the continuation of the conflict between the see of Coimbra and the Santa Cruz Monastery in Coimbra over privileges and assets, the management of which would involve the successive intervention of the papacy and its legates.20 At the same time, the bishops’ complaints about the faithful’s refusal to pay tithes or the misappropriation of tithes by different religious institutions multiplied over the course of these decades, and the complaints show the growing importance of this tribute as a source of income, and also the situation of instability which was prevalent in different ecclesiastical institutions. Without constituting a coherent edifice, the fact is that these overlapping indications within a short time frame seem to question the dominant scenario of appeasement and a good relationship between powers. What seems to have been 18

About the importance of the idea of crisis in the characterization of the late Middle Ages, see Watts, The Making of Polities, pp. 13–19. 19 Linehan, Portugalia Pontificia, i, doc. 462, p. 328 and doc. 508, p. 352. 20 Linehan, Portugalia Pontificia, i, docs 468–75, pp. 331–36, and ii, 220–23, and i, doc 517, p. 357. Martins, O mosteiro de Santa Cruz de Coimbra, pp. 438–48.

44

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

drawn under the diaphanous veil of political collaboration is a set of initiatives and ecclesiastical reactions to an economic situation, the contours of which are still unclear but marked by difficulties in exploitation on assets and the collection of duties in the context of an increasingly monetarized economy. This is framed in a context in which Afonso III’s manorial policy seems to have clearly benefited the noble lineages closest to him, giving them the leading roles in a particularly evident process of imposing noble landlords in southern Portugal, but which did not benefit the ecclesiastical group, or at least not in the same way. Thus, the complaints addressed to the papacy and headed by the Portuguese bishops should be understood not only in the context of the royal actions immediately before the year of the prelates’ departure from the kingdom, specifically regarding the law of 1265 or the loan of 1266, but above all, in the context of an accumulation of factors that resulted in the clergy having less ease of access to new sources of income. And so, the complaints made by the bishops were not shared or assumed by other social groups nor, as we shall see, despite the virulence of some bulls, did they question the legitimacy of Afonso III’s right to govern. As noted above, between the end of 1266 and the first months of 1267, most Portuguese bishops left the kingdom for the Curia.21 Upon their arrival, the Archbishop of Braga, Martinho Geraldes, and the Bishops of Porto (D. Vicente), Coimbra (D. Egas Fafes), Lisbon (D. Mateus), Guarda (D. Rodrigo), and Viseu (D. Mateus), accompanied by representatives of the bishops of Lamego and Évora, submitted a long list of grievances against the king and his officers, identifying infringements and perpetrators and reaffirming the king’s disrespect for the commitments agreed upon. All the bishops placed their dioceses under interdict, except Mateus, Bishop of Lisbon. Although he left for the Curia and was apparently there in 1267, he returned to Portugal shortly afterwards and did not subject his diocese to the ordeal of such enforcement.22 So, only two of Portugal’s nine bishops had seemingly remained in the kingdom, that is, the Bishop of Lamego, Pedro Eanes, and the Bishop of Évora, Martinho, who died that same year (1266) and was replaced by a close collaborator of the king: Durando Pais. The two bishops nonetheless sent their 21 Again, we do not know the precise dates of departure of each bishop. We also do not know if they left all at the same time. According to Maria Alegria Fernandes, the presence of most prelates at the Roman Curia can be proved between 1267 and 1268. Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, pp. 390–91. 22 According to Herculano, some might have travelled across the Kingdom of Léon at the end of 1266. He thus states the presence of the bishops of Coimbra, Porto, and Lamego at Ciudad Rodrigo by the end of 1266. The Bishop of Lamego did not travel to the Curia himself; he sent a representative. Herculano, História de Portugal, iii, 127.

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)

45

representatives. The Bishop of Silves, Bartolomeu, was torn by split loyalties between the Portuguese and Castilian jurisdictions.23 On the bishops’ side, we find a strange and heterogeneous group. Martinho Geraldes, Archbishop of Braga between 1256 and 1271, was already the diocese’s schoolmaster in 1245; shortly after, he secured the position of rector of the church of Santa Maria de Guimarães.24 With close connections to the Curia during the pontificates of Alexander IV and Clement IV, he received several privileges from these popes, authorizing him to accumulate benefices and reward some of his closest ecclesiastics.25 A chaplain and auditor of the pope, he was at the Curia when he was appointed Archbishop of Braga, in 1256, and returned to the Curia when things went awry in Portugal. He died at Viterbo in 1271 and was replaced by Pedro Juliães, future Pope John XXI.26 Vicente Mendes, Bishop of Porto, was the son of D. Mendo and D. Teresa, a rich, noble family according to José Augusto Ferreira.27 When he was Dean of Porto, he was elected bishop in 1260 and confirmed in 1261. He departed with the other bishops to Viterbo, where he stayed until 1281, that is, shortly after the death of Afonso  III and the enthronement of King Dinis. As the protagonist of a long conflict with the king regarding commerce and navigation on the River Douro and the privileges of Porto, in 1264 he seemed to have reached an agreement with the king.28 However this agreement was, apparently, not good enough to prevent his departure. Indeed, the complaints to the pope included one concerning the king’s support for the founding of new settlements near lands owned by the Church, with inevitable economic consequences. Undoubtedly, hanging over the wording of this complaint was the protection given by Afonso III to the village of Gaia, founded on the opposite bank of the River Douro, facing the city of Porto, which until then had been its episcopal 23

Marques, ‘Afonso X e a Diocese de Silves’. Rodríguez de Lama, La documentación pontíficia de Alejandro IV, nº  201, p.  212; Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso  III, pp.  158–59; and Rodrigues, Os capitulares bracarenses, p. 141. 25 Rodríguez de Lama, La documentación pontíficia de Alejandro IV, nº 202, pp. 202–03; Jordan, Les Registres de Clément IV, nº 663, p. 233. 26 There is relatively abundant bibliography on Pedro Juliães, who became Pope John XXI. On his pathway, Ventura, ‘A nobreza de Corte de Afonso III’, ii, 771–72; Rodrigues, Os capitulares bracarenses, pp. 116–23; and Meirinhos, Pedro Hispano. 27 Ferreira, Memorias archeologico­historicas da cidade do Porto, p. 249, and Cunha and Silva, ‘The King’s Service and God’s Service’. 28 Chancelaria de D. Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livre I, i, doc. 308, pp. 351–52. 24

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

46

landlord. Returning to Portugal after 1281, Vicente was one of the leading figures in the negotiations between the king and the bishops, under the pope’s aegis, which led to the 1289 agreements. Egas Fafes de Lanhoso was Bishop of Coimbra between 1248 and 1267,29 until his transfer to the archbishopric of Compostela by order of Pope Clement IV.30 Canon and Archdeacon of Braga, his presence at the Curia is frequently mentioned during the 1250s. As a possible result of such closeness he enjoyed an important set of privileges, given to him by different popes, allowing him to incorporate new property into the episcopal mensa,31 as well as to overcome a disputed election.32 His concerns still seem to have centred on defining competencies in relation to the Santa Cruz Monastery in Coimbra and defining borders with the neighbouring diocese of Guarda.33 He was a member of a family connected to royal service, a brother to three advisors to the king,34 and defended the legitimacy of the marriage of King Afonso III to Queen Beatriz before the pope. His appointment to Compostela allowed him some distance from the Portuguese problems and avoided a direct confrontation with Portuguese royalty. He died shortly after his appointment, in Montpellier, without taking possession of his new archbishopric. Meanwhile, for the diocese of Coimbra, left vacant by the appointment of D. Egas to Compostela, the pope appointed a former collaborator of the king, Mateus Martins, then Bishop of Viseu and chaplain of Afonso III.35 Despite his previous relationship with the king, his appointment to Coimbra was never 29

He was elected in 1247 and approved by the Archbishop of Braga, but not confirmed by the pope. Pope Innocent IV only confirmed his appointment in December 1248, mentioning some accusations previously made. Berger, Les Registres d’Innocent IV, ii, nº 564, pp. 523–24. Also see Ventura, ‘A nobreza de Corte de Afonso III’, ii, 750–52, and Cardoso, Catálogo dos bispos da Diocese de Coimbra, p. 6. 30 Jordan, Les Registres de Clément IV, nº 543, p. 181. 31 In 1255 Pope Alexander IV granted him the possibility of incorporating the rents from the churches of S. Martinho de Montemor, Pedrogão, and Avô, into the episcopal mensa, recalling the poverty of the said mensa. The year before, Innocent IV had authorized him to borrow money using Church assets as a guarantee up to a maximum of two hundred libras. Les Registres d’Innocent IV, ii, nº 939, p. 825, and Rodríguez de Lama, La documentación pontíficia de Alejandro IV, nº 130, pp. 135–46. 32 This disturbance is echoed in the pope’s confirmation bull. About the election process, see Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, pp. 256–57. 33 Linehan, Portugalia Pontificia, i, docs 504, 507, and 530–31, pp. 350–52 and pp. 363–64. 34 Morujão, A Sé de Coimbra, pp. 130–38. 35 Morujão, A Sé de Coimbra, pp. 138–39.

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)

47

accepted by Afonso, and he was never referred to as Bishop of Coimbra in royal documentation. Curiously, the royal documentation between 1268 and 1279 always mentions the dioceses of Coimbra and Viseu as vacant. The direct reasons for the king’s confrontation with his former chaplain are unclear. His refusal to recognise Mateus as Bishop of Coimbra may be explained by the fact that the king was probably interested in having someone else in this diocese. His departure to Viterbo as Bishop of Viseu, supporting the other bishops, probably did not please the king and sealed his destiny. This destiny was not yet clear at the time of his election to Viseu. Chosen by the chapter in 1254, his election led to a long conflict with the choirmaster of Viseu, Pedro Peres, which lasted some years. This conflict forced the pope to intervene and reach an agreement between the chapter and the choirmaster, despite the king’s apparent opposition.36 Although he enjoyed royal support at the time, the king later forced him to rule his diocese of Coimbra from a distance through vicars general successively appointed until 1279. In that year, D. Mateus finally resigned his see into the hands of the pope, who appointed Aymeric d’Ébrard. He then resumed his position as Bishop of Viseu until 1287, although he never returned to Portugal.37 Mateus, Bishop of Lisbon, also seemed close to the king. His turbulent and prolonged election, between 1258 and 1262, which was also marked by royal intervention, would seal the fate of a long rule, in an environment of conflict between the bishops and the king. Despite being mentioned in papal bulls, and in the list of the bishops’ grievances, his support for the episcopal cause seems to have been somewhat discreet, balancing between his loyalty to the monarch who had supported him at the beginning of his rule (and whose support he wanted to maintain) and his closeness to the group of bishops to which he belonged.38 Rodrigo Fernandes, Bishop of Guarda (1248–67), was probably one of the few in this group who witnessed the events of Afonso III’s first years of government. He was a relative of Fernão Martins Curutelo and uncle of Aires Fernandes (de Meira) and so member of a noble lineage.39 Rodrigo Fernandes 36

Ventura and da Cunha Matos, Diplomatário da Sé de Viseu, doc. 348, pp. 320–59. As regards the presence of the prelate in Viseu, see Farelo, ‘O episcopado após 1147’, pp. 200–201. 38 This bishop’s career pathway and election process were recently studied in Antunes, ‘Mateus (1262–1282)’. 39 Ventura, ‘A nobreza de Corte de Afonso III’, ii, 748–48. A ceremony was celebrated in memory of his soul at the monastery of S. Vicente de Fora, near Lisbon. Santos, Um obituário do Mosteiro de S. Vicente de Fora, p. 134. 37

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

48

was the bishop of an inland diocese, a minor one, given its low income and lack of political centrality. He died at the Curia and was replaced by Friar Vasco, a Franciscan appointed by the pope.40 In short, this was the very heterogeneous group that left for the Curia after placing an interdict on the kingdom. They were servants of the king and pope, and what seems to unite them on all fronts is the beginning of their tenures in the different dioceses, dating from the late 1240s or even during the 1250s. None had been bishops during the 1245 crisis, nor had they witnessed the Oath of Paris sworn by Afonso III. The only exception was Martinho, one of the two bishops who remained in Portugal. Martinho Pires de Évora died in 1266. Contemporary with the 1245 crisis, it is quite possible that the delay to his consecration as bishop was partly due to the problems arising from the political conflicts of the final years of King Sancho II’s rule.41 Martinho Pires de Évora was close to the king, to whom he granted, in 1253, two-thirds of the tithes of Beja’s churches to rebuild the wall of the city,42 and it was to him that the king swore not to devaluate the coin, circa 1255.43 Martinho’s successor in the diocese would be an ecclesiastic with close connections to royalty. Royal advisor, king’s cleric, and also queen’s chancellor, Durando Pais was the only bishop who attended some meetings between Afonso III and the papal legate Friar Nicholas Hispanus. He was also one of the few ecclesiastics present at the king’s death, together with Domingos Anes Jardo, his successor in the same diocese.44 Pedro Eanes, Bishop of Lamego between 1257 and 1270, was also close to the king. In a letter sent to the Archbishop of Compostela in May 1258,45 Afonso III says he is ‘viro utique literato provido et honesto tam in temporalibus quam in spiritualibus’ thus asking for his confirmation as bishop. Old age possibly justified the absence of both prelates, causing them to appoint representatives. But the appointment of representatives, on the one hand, and 40

Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, p. 441, n. 242. Jordan, Les Registres de Clément IV, nº 529, pp. 170–71. 41 Vilar, As dimensões de um poder, pp. 47–56. 42 Chancelaria de D. Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livro I, i, doc. 17, p. 29. 43 Chancelaria de D. Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livro I, ii, doc. 705, p. 278. 44 Brandão, Monarquia Lusitana, Parte IV, fols 254–255v. 45 Chancelaria de D. Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livro I, i, doc. 143, p. 165, and Ventura, D. Afonso III, p. 150.

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)

49

the relatively disparaging reactions of the Bishop of Lisbon, on the other hand, suggest that this group, albeit united by its grievances, was divided by multiple loyalties and personal ties. Yet this is the group heading the list of grievances presented to the pope in 1268. Whether drawn up in Rome or Portugal,46 the drafting of this list presupposes coordination and even exchange of information between prelates, but no information has emerged about the existence of possible meetings or exchanges. It is true that one of the complaints referred to the royal opposition to meetings of bishops as well as parish priests. But this complaint was not original or exclusive to Portugal. In 1279, the Castilian clergy also complained to the pope about Afonso X’s opposition to holding meetings of prelates, giving the appearance that these opinions were shared between Afonso III and his father-inlaw. These shared ideals would possibly have been extended to other neighbouring monarchs, who were also not in favour of the holding of these meetings; it usually ended with the complaints or requests being presented to the king or pope.47 But one way or another the drafting of this list implied coordination, the form of which escapes us. In fact, as a whole, the roll of complaints by the Portuguese bishops were close to the themes present in similar situations. Aggravations resulting from royal intervention in episcopal elections, abuses by royal officers on the persons and property of the Church, conflicts of jurisdiction and the exercise of justice, difficulties in the collection of tithes, and improper imposition of taxes were the background of many other lists of grievances of greater or lesser extent which bishops presented to kings and popes, particularly in the course of the thirteenth century and even into the fourteenth century.48 Regardless of the virulence of the criticism, little or no progress was made in the following years until the death of the king. These bishops, appointed to their dioceses after the crisis and the deposition of 1245, were not members of the group who had imposed conditions, even if theoretically, on the crown prince who aspired to the Portuguese throne. And 46

Probably the list with forty-three articles was preceded by the other list with forty-four articles published by Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, from a copy existing in the Braga archives. For this author the two documents are linked. In this list many of the articles have examples of the behaviours of the king and his officials against clerics and Church assets. Most of these examples were absent from the final list. 47 Linehan, The Spanish Church and the Papacy, p. 174, and Linehan, ‘The Spanish Church Revisited’. 48 This list was abridged by Herculano, História de Portugal, iii, 131–40. See note 6, above.

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

50

as such, their capacity to influence and place pressure on a king who had already imposed himself was now much smaller. On the other hand, at the Curia, the situation in effect between 1266 and 1289 made it easier to drag the situation out and postpone a decision. Between 1266 and 1289 there were nine popes in Rome, some of whom ruled for a very short period. And the consequent instability was largely exploited by royalty, especially by the Portuguese monarch and his supporters. The second legateship of Friar Nicholas Hispanus serves as a good example. In addition to the inevitable changes regarding the replacement of pontiffs, Afonso III tried to ensure that he benefited from the election of the first Portuguese pope, John XXI, former Archbishop of Braga and former king’s advisor. The sudden death of John XXI and his short rule frustrated many of Afonso III’s expectations. The king would refer to these in the account of Friar Nicholas Hispanus’s legateship.

The ‘Enterprise’ of Friar Nicholas Hispanus in Portugal From 1268 to February 1277, before the second legateship of Friar Nicholas Hispanus in Portugal, the papacy made some efforts to reconcile the Portuguese bishops with the king, once again revealing the choice of a policy of conciliation and even continued support for the king. An account of these vicissitudes has already been made by José Mattoso and Maria Alegria Marques. Their writings point to the idea of a continuous effort to create a lasting agreement, interrupted by bulls that resumed the threats of interdicts on the kingdom and of disconnecting the subjects from their loyalty oath to the monarch.49 Added to this, Afonso III maintained a policy which combined attitudes of apparent regret and the desire to make amends, as happened with the appointment of a commission of ‘correctors’ from the Cortes of Santarém in 1273,50 with disregard for papal guidelines regarding the deadlines for correcting such abuses. 49

Mattoso, ‘Dois séculos de vicissitudes políticas’, pp. 143–47. Pope Clement IV suspended the interdict for six months in July 1268. 50 Despite the suspension of the interdict, a succession of popes frowned on the dubious attitudes of Afonso III. The matter was discussed again by Gregory X who, in May 1273, urged the king to change his attitude towards the Church. The monarch asked him for some time to summon the Cortes, which took place at Santarém. In December 1273, a long and interesting list of thirty-five correctors were ordered and empowered to correct all the things made by the king against the Church: ‘corregam e façam correger todalas cousas que acharem e virem que forom feytas per mim e pelos meus do meu Reyno sem razom que se devam a correger e a entregar aos sobreditos arcebispo e aos bispos e aos prelados e aas eygrejas e aos moesteyros e

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)

51

In the context of these somewhat troubled relations, Gregory X’s bull De regno Portugaliae, dated September 1275, was a crucial step. Recapitulation of the evolution of the conflict heralded a practice that would also be present at the beginning of Friar Nicholas’s legateship. During his legateship, the presentation and reading of consecutive bulls, together with the text of the king’s oath in Paris, sought to demonstrate the blatantly disrespectful attitude of the king. It was disrespectful of ecclesiastic privileges and liberties, as repeatedly reaffirmed by the Church, but also contemptuous of the oath itself, through which he had secured his appointment as protector of the realm in 1245, replacing his brother. The Church thus tried to question the legitimacy of one who had been chosen as an alternative to a rex inutilis. After that, Gregory X included in his bull a three-month deadline for the king to comply, threatening him with increasingly serious penalties and, ultimately, promising to release his subjects from loyalty vis-à-vis the monarch — including an interdict over the entire kingdom.51 At the beginning of 1276, however, the pope’s untimely death dissipated the chances of immediate reaction. Both Innocent V and John XXI resumed the policies of Gregory X’s bull and gave Friar Nicholas Hispanus a new legateship, instructing him to begin a new round of talks with the Portuguese king. Meanwhile ten years had passed since the departure of the bishops from the kingdom. In this context, this legateship emerged as another opportunity given by the papacy to reach a consensus and a peaceful solution. Friar Nicholas presented himself before the king at the royal palace of Lisbon, on 7  February 1277.52 The proceedings of this legateship certainly are an invaluable source of extremely important and rich information, reflecting those aas pessoas das eygrejas e dos moesteyros e aos fidalgos e aas ordiis e aos concelhos e aos poboos e a todalas comunidades do Reyno’. This group included Bishop Durando of Évora, a large number of nobles as king’s clerics, whom in several cases we find again by the king’s side on the occasion of the meetings between Afonso III and Friar Nicholas Hispanus. Chancelaria de D. Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livro III, doc. 6, pp. 243–45. As expected, the results produced by this committee were none, and this might have been at the root of Pope Gregory X’s 1275 bull. 51 Linehan, Portugalia Pontificia, i, doc. 754, p. 473 (reference to the bull), and ii, doc. 753, pp. 305–09 (transcript of the episcopal memorandum about the implementation of the bull De regno Portugaliae). In the Middle Ages both bishops and popes frequently resorted to interdicts, although their effects sharply varied according to each individual case. For a case study, see Cheney, ‘King John and the Papal Interdict’. For a broader perspective on the enforcement and contents of the interdict, see Clarke, The Interdict in the Thirteenth Century. 52 On the publication of these proceedings, see note 2, above.

52

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

who drafted them and the result of their work, that is, the papal legate and his scribe. They seek to report to the pope, in writing, the impressions of their visit to Portugal and the results of the meetings with the Portuguese king.53 This report, albeit neither naïve nor impartial, brings us closer to the meanderings of those multiple meetings held between February and October 1277. It corresponds, however, to the way in which Friar Nicholas interpreted the successive delays and repeated displays of power by the king during the meetings. Although Afonso III received the legate and proved open to finding a solution to the problem caused by the departure of most of the bishops to the Curia, the royal strategy mostly unfolded in the corridors of the Curia — not through the interaction with Friar Nicholas. Also, royal discourse seems to be clearly based on such a dichotomy, that is, the unstable balance between maintaining negotiations with the papal legate and getting royal representatives at the Curia to obtain favourable results for the king’s claims. As occurred in the ensuing meetings, at the first meeting on 7 February, Friar Nicholas made his presentation in the vernacular and made public, before the king and a large and diverse group of people, a bulky set of documents, including several papal bulls, from the 1275 bull, reporting the history of the conflict, to the bull removing Sancho II, as well as the text of Afonso III’s oath, among others. The explicit reference to the speech in the vernacular language enables us to glimpse a clear concern with being understood by the people who listened to him, including those who had a limited understanding of Latin.54 In fact, this long presentation before the king was witnessed by a group including many clergymen but also a few laymen. On the bishops’ side, we can only identify Bishop Durando of Évora, but other clerics also heard the speech. Reference should be made to the Abbot of Alcobaça, along with dignities and canons of several dioceses (namely Lisbon, Braga, Évora, and Viseu),55 53 Friar Nicholas was not the first legate sent by the pope to address issues between king and Church. Other legateships had left their impressions on the Iberian territory, many of them unrelated to the rule of Afonso III. The most famous, and most analysed one, is undoubtedly the legateship of John of Abbeville in the 1220s. About this journey to the peninsula, see Linehan, ‘A Papal Legation and its Aftermath’, and Linehan, The Spanish Church and the Papacy, pp. 20ff., and on subsequent legateships, pp. 188ff. 54 As regards the expanded knowledge of Latin among non-ecclesiastics, but also the importance of hearing the word, see Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, pp. 234–39 and pp. 260–65. 55 Specifically: Pedro Martins, Dean and Vicar of the Bishop of Lisbon; Martim Dade, Treasurer of the Church of Lisbon; João Soares, canon of Lisbon; Domingos Fernandes, also canon of Lisbon; Vicente Eanes, Choirmaster of Évora and canon of Lisbon; Domingos Jardo,

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)

53

some holding roles as king’s clerics or advisors, and a significant number of Dominican and Franciscan friars and regular canons of a few monasteries. A total of more than thirty clergymen, together with the masters and members of the military Order of the Temple and of the military Order of the Hospital, were joined by some fourteen laymen, clearly less important. The maiordomus, a few lords of castles, the judge of the royal curia, the reposteiro (housekeeper), and a royal scribe, among other laymen, completed this predominantly ecclesiastical audience.56 By doing this, Afonso III thus showed the agreement between Church and king in front of the pope’s envoy, despite the bishops’ opposition. He reaffirmed that he was backed by the diocesan chapters, from which he recruited many advisors, and whose bishops remained at the Curia — or were cautiously remaining distant from the conflict, as did the Bishop of Lisbon. After his long presentation, Friar Nicholas begged the king to take a stand and obey the pope’s orders. But Afonso III concentrated on asking for copies of the submitted documents — which were hardly unknown to him and could certainly be easily obtained, as they had been sent to him by the predecessors of John XXI — rather than acceding to the legate’s requests. Thus, the request for a copy was presented as a prerequisite to a response by the monarch, and Friar Nicholas had no option other than to accept the royal request. Nicholas left the royal palace and descended to the Cathedral of Lisbon. In front of Bishop Durando of Évora and many other clerics who were at the royal hearing, he published and explained, once again in the vernacular, the details of his arguments. Ecclesiastical circles close to the king thus fulfilled their obligations to the pope’s legate, that is, escorting him and keeping him company during his perambulations, without seeming to put their loyalty to the king in jeopardy. This was the first of a series of meetings between the pope’s legate and King Afonso III. At least six meetings were held from 7 February to 6 October 1277. Indeed, all reports on every consecutive meeting show that the king apparently wanted to buy time, successively postponing a response to the questions asked by the legate, and he always did it in front of great audiences. The same happened, king’s cleric and advisor and canon of Évora; Estevão de Rates, canon of Braga and king’s advisor; João Pais, canon of Viseu and king’s advisor; Domingos Pires, canon of Coimbra and king’s cleric. 56 Comparing this group to the group of correctors of 1273, we can see that around a third of the participants are the same, especially those belonging to the nobility, clearly representing a lower percentage in the meeting of February 1277 than in 1273. In the case of the clergymen Durando of Évora, Estevão Rates, and Domingos Pires, they were present at both meetings as king’s clerics, as well as Afonso Peres Farinha, Master of Knights Hospitaller in Portugal.

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

54

again, on 30 March, when Friar Nicholas urged the king to answer the pope’s requests, after a meeting with the barons requested by the king, who had postponed the next meeting to a date after Easter — celebrated on 28 March. Very sure of his negotiations with John XXI, Afonso III said he wanted to send representatives to settle the issue in a manner agreeable to both parties. The king, faced with pressure from the pope’s legate to obtain his agreement, together with the dangers that could result from any postponement to the royal representatives’ journey to the Curia, reaffirmed his claim: ‘Illud quod predixi facere volo’,57 and once more he did so in front of an audience composed mainly of clergymen close to him.58 In this context Friar Nicholas took a difficult measure. He went from Lisbon to several cities in central and northern Portugal, namely Santarém, Coimbra, Porto, Braga, Guimarães, Lamego, Viseu, and Guarda. In each one and upon his arrival, between April and late July, he read the pope’s letters and had them published at the church door, urging the king to amend his alleged abuses and exposing his own arguments to a large, albeit not participative, audience. He visited the diocese centres, as well as Guimarães — where the powerful collegiate of Santa Maria da Oliveira was located. He did all this in the absence of any decision by the king. The sudden death of John XXI in May 1277 made negotiations with the king more complex, to the detriment of the claims of Afonso III. This was perhaps the reason, as Maria Alegria Marques puts it, why Friar Nicholas was urged to interrupt his journey through the main cities of the kingdom and stopped publishing papal letters, when he was again received by the king. Afonso III himself mentions the death of the pope as the reason for the meeting of 27 July, in which the monarch wanted to know if Friar Nicholas could relieve him of his penalties. The nuncio answered that such a pardon was not in his hands. As we might have expected, the king did not like this answer. Once again, impasse affected the legateship. The legate’s report says that, in front of the people of Lisbon, gathered both at the city’s cathedral and the House of Franciscan Friars, Friar Nicholas protested about the lack of a royal response, in an effort seemingly directed to many of those who repeatedly took the king’s 57

Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, p. 565. At the end of this meeting’s report, when the document was sealed, it was declared that some of the ecclesiastics were present at the legate’s request. He wanted to gather evidence and testimonies that ensured the future memory of the debate. However, since these were the same ecclesiastics who were at the first meeting, it seems that Friar Nicholas sought the testimony of clerics close to the king. 58

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)

55

side. He then resumed his journey, now heading south to Évora, the bishop of which had remained in Portugal. At Évora, before its prelate and members of the chapter, as well as many members of the people, if we believe his account, Friar Nicholas published the royal orders again. From there, he returned to Lisbon. At that time, Portugal and Castile still disputed the diocese of Silves in the Kingdom of Algarve. Nicholas’s journey therefore ended at Alentejo’s episcopal city. All this took place before the final meeting with the king, when Afonso III put an end to the discussion, saying that the time for discussion was already over. This time, the audience was perhaps less impressive. The proceedings do mention the presence of ‘quibusdam aliis’, but the only witnesses mentioned on the list at the end of each meeting were those considered deserving by the pope’s scribe — that is, those whose names he had been instructed to write down. Dinis and Afonso, the king’s sons, are mentioned for the first time. This was a clear reference to the succession that Afonso III possibly saw coming in the near future, but also underscored the importance of the meeting, which would put an end to the legateship. Besides the princes, whose names are at the top of the list, we see a group of the king’s closest nobles for the first time: João Peres de Aboim, Martim Gil, and Martim Eanes do Vinhal, among others. Only after these, switching the order of all lists of witnesses until then, came a few friars and king’s clerics, such as Domingos Eanes Jardo, canon of Évora at the time and its future bishop, and Estevão de Rates, canon of Braga and king’s cleric, but in rather smaller numbers than in previous meetings. This time, the display of power does not seem to be represented by the group of ecclesiastics, but by the royal princes and the king’s discourse. In this last meeting, Afonso III stated it was no longer time for discussion and negotiation, clearly saying that the legateship would no longer produce any results. Actually, Afonso III appeared to have little interest in the results, or at least in the effectiveness, of the papal legateship. King Afonso III was interested in obtaining a quick pardon and putting an end to his excommunication. In their last meeting, he may have tried to convince Friar Nicholas of the effects of Gil Rebolo’s action at the Curia and the eventual pardon intended by John XXI, terminated by the pope’s sudden death in May 1277.59 To address this delay, the king requested the intervention of Afonso Peres Farinha, Master of the Knights Hospitaller, who was sent to the Curia and reaffirmed the pope’s intentions. Both parties’ intransigent stances led to the blunt sentence of Afonso III quoted at the beginning of this essay. 59

The entire argumentation of Afonso III is based on the alleged success of Gil Rebolo and Friar Afonso Peres Farinha’s journey to the Curia as his representatives. Master Tomé, treasurer of the church of Braga had also represented the king at the Curia.

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

56

King Afonso III died in February 1279, and until that point, little news (if any) was heard on any further developments in the king’s relationship with the bishops. The hypothesis, according to which Friar Nicholas’s departure, having obtained no royal reaction other than the need to review Gregory X’s provisions, would have paved the way to ending Afonso III’s legitimate authority, thus causing subsequent internal disturbances, does not seem likely, as already stressed by José Mattoso.60 It was no longer possible for the nobility to use social instability to improve their standing, as most of them had sided with the king, even after the threat posed by the 1258 Inquisitiones. On the other hand, the time for his successor to rise to the throne was approaching. His presence at the last meeting seems to confirm it and, despite a few (implied rather than stated) issues associated with his succession, in the first months of King Dinis’s rule, the power of dynastic continuity certainly prevailed.61 The new king would have to find the agreements required to end this conflict, which enabled the gradual return of the prelates to the kingdom and the renewed intervention of the king in the episcopal domain — now legitimized by the said agreements. Dinis, a silent witness of the last meeting between Afonso III and Friar Nicholas Hispanus, inherited a problem that would take some time to solve. Afonso III’s repentance, registered upon his death, paved the way for reconciliation, but, like his father before him, Dinis did not want an agreement at any price. That is why the negotiations were slow and troubled. And only in 1289 was a general agreement reached.

From Grievances to Agreements: A Possible Closure? The forty-article agreement which in principle brought an end to the conflict with the bishops was approved on 12 February 1289 in the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome. It was confirmed by the papal bull Occurrit nostrae considerationis dated 7 March 1289.62 The importance of this agreement and another consisting of only eleven articles is attested to by its inclusion in the Ordenações Afonsinas, the first major compilation of Portuguese law, drawn up in the fifteenth century.63 In fact, the translation, copying, and incorporation of these first documents regarding the agreements between the kings and bishops of Portuguese dioceses into the said legal compilation unequivocally illustrate their 60 61 62 63

Mattoso, ‘Dois séculos de vicissitudes políticas’, p. 146. Pizarro, D. Dinis, pp. 65–72, and Vilar, ‘Inquirir e doar no final do século xiii’. Costa, ‘Concilio Provincial de Compostela’, pp. 407–09. Ordenações Afonsinas, livro II, pp. 3–44.

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)

57

importance and also show the way in which the established guidelines continued to regulate the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical powers. In tandem with this draft, copies of the agreement were sent to different dioceses, where they are still present in the archives. This apparently simple and clean text seems to have been the subject of various negotiations. This is because the text which was approved in 1289 was the version which was to be recorded for the future. Thus, the 1289 agreement was advanced as a set of forty articles that summarized the prelates’ complaints and requests, with each of these articles followed by the answers of the two representatives of the king. Their answers invariably affirmed the innocence of the present king, Dinis, regarding his responsibility for the misconduct which the prelates mentioned, or when there was a risk of the possibility of some abuse, they quickly undertook to make the necessary corrections. Dinis was thus unusually shown as a compliant, complacent king who respected ecclesiastical liberties and could only have behaved in such a condemnable way by mistake. It comes as no surprise that negotiations were lengthy and complicated. The general agreement of 1289 represents a fragile equilibrium, carefully struck to balance the interests of the three parties. In fact, like his father before him, Dinis was in no rush to normalize the relationships with the bishops and the pope. The inherited impasse does not seem to have spurred on royal action. As a matter of fact, discussions about the final document which had taken place previously when Dinis refused to accept a first draft of the agreement prove the importance of the text that would become registered and codified for future memory.64 But if Dinis was in no hurry to resolve this conflict, availability for such a resolution was also limited on the part of the papacy in the years immediately following the death of Afonso III. In the same year of the death of Afonso III, 1279, Nicholas III addressed to Afonso X a list of complaints of the Castilian bishops. This list had inevitable 64

A first version of the agreement, according to the definition of articles and the respective royal responses, seems to have emerged from the Cortes da Guarda, in 1281. In 1284, Pope Martin IV sent the final text for review, saying that some responses proposed by the king could not be accepted. Domínguez Sánchez, Documentos de Martín IV, doc. 125, pp. 319–21. Furthermore, the pope demanded a royal response to every article, which had not happened yet. Upon Martin IV’s death, the process was once again interrupted. The Cortes of Lisbon in 1285 opposed certain proposals of the pope, arguing that, according to the bishops, they hurt the Crown and the royal majesty. The main guidelines in this negotiation were described by Costa, ‘D. Frei Telo’. The request for clarification and the support asked by the bishops is mentioned and partially transcribed in Linehan, Portugalia Pontificia, i, doc. 816, 509–10 and n. 3. The full text can be found in Costa, Monumenta Portugaliae Vaticana, i, pp. xc–xci.

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

58

features in common with the list given a few years earlier by the Portuguese prelates. Having recently emerged from a crisis of the nobility, the Kingdom of Castile and the opposition between king and bishops put new pressure on the papacy and its action of mediation. The appointment of a new legate was the mandatory solution found by the pope; he appealed to the Bishop of Rieti, to whom he issued a ballot in reference to the seven articles to be answered by the king.65 The 1270s closed with Portuguese and Castilian prelates at odds with their respective monarchs and their brethren in common complaints, while the high pontiffs sought compromises and balances which were not always easy to enact. This was especially the case when normalcy seemed to prevail while negotiations took place, at least after the death of Afonso III. The bishops who acted as representatives of the Portuguese prelates, as a whole, in February 1289 were quite different from those who had left for the Curia in the mid-1260s. Four bishops led the final formalization of the agreement, specifically those responsible for the dioceses of Braga, Coimbra, Lamego, and Silves. Friar Telo, the Archbishop of Braga, was a Franciscan appointed in 1278 by Pope Nicholas III, who had previously been prior of his order in the province of Castile. His appointment to Braga seems to have been marked from the outset by the search for a solution to the lingering conflict, which the death and supposed regret of Afonso III may have facilitated. For its part, the diocese of Coimbra would see the arrival of the first of a long list of prelates of French origin.66 A member of the Ébrard family, Aymeric is one of his family’s first ecclesiastics to take an important position in Coimbra’s ecclesiastical hierarchy;67 coming from Palencia, where he was archdeacon, Aymeric was Bishop of Coimbra between 1279 and 1295. Bartolomeu was the first Bishop of Silves to recognize the Portuguese king’s right over the diocese of Algarve, after the agreements with Castile regarding its possession in 1270.68 These circumstances spared him from leaving for the Curia with the other bishops and possibly allowed him to remain close to the monarch, with this proximity being strengthened by his position as king’s chaplain. 65

Linehan, The Spanish Church and the Papacy, pp. 217–21, Linehan, ‘The Spanish Church Revisited’, and Domínguez Sánchez, Documentos de Nicolás III, doc. 118, pp. 340–45. 66 Morujão, A Sé de Coimbra, pp. 140–54. 67 Morujão, ‘La Famille d’Ébrard et le Clergé de Coimbra’ and Pradalié, ‘Quercynois et autres méridionaux au Portugal à la fin du xiiie et au xive siècle’. 68 Chancelaria de D. Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livro III, doc. 15, pp. 256–57.

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)

59

Of the four new bishops, João of Lamego was the last to take an episcopal seat. He was appointed by Honorius IV in 1285 after a disputed election.69 The connection of three of these bishops to the papacy, which could even be seen in the way the pope presided over their appointment, thus seems to be a point of connection between them, and this proximity may have contributed to the gradual establishment of this agreement. While these ecclesiastics were responsible for the final part of the negotiation on the side of the bishops, on the other side were neither lay people or royal officials, but also two ecclesiastics, belonging to the chapters of Évora and Coimbra. Martinho Pires and João Martins de Soalhães were to be the voices for the royal answers and communicators of Dinis’s will. Servants of the Church and the king, they were to carry out the task faithfully and take from it the inevitable fruits. Both would have successful careers in the Portuguese ecclesiastical hierarchy from the 1290s onwards.70 Of course, these agreements, called the forty and eleven articles, established in 1289 would not be the last to regulate relations between kings and bishops in Portugal. A few years later, in 1302, a new, more restricted and partial agreement would be established again, and after that many others would be registered. However, the appeal to the pope by the Portuguese episcopate would never again be made in the same way. There can be no doubt that the departure of the bishops for the Curia in 1267 was a turning point in the relationship between King Afonso III and the Church, as was the submission of such a long list of grievances. The conjunctural circumstances that were the basis of this reaction have already been indicated, but the fact is that this action of the Portuguese episcopate was no more than a reprise of the line of action which was followed in neighbouring kingdoms by prelates throughout the thirteenth century. Castile, France, and England were also stages for dissent and protest between the episcopate and their respective monarchs. The similarities between the complaints of the Portuguese clergy in 1268 and those of the Castilian clergy in 1279 are evident, as has already been shown, and a more detailed comparison is now required. In England the numerous lists of grievances presented by the English clergy since 1237 and studied by W. T. Jones,71 and which would lead to 69

Prou, Les Registres d’Honorius IV, nº 528, p. 368. As regards these ecclesiastics, see Vilar, ‘The Life and Times of Martinho Pires de Oliveira’, pp. 323–44. 71 Jones, ‘Bishops, Politics, and the Two Laws’. 70

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

60

the Articuli Cleri of 1316,72 also seem to point in a common direction, despite differences in their conjuncture. Of course, this common direction lies not only in the royal action and its effects on privileges and above all on ecclesiastical rights; it lies rather in the balance between pope, king, and national clergy and then in the balance of the different interests that played out in each space and each period. In the Portuguese case, although recourse to the Curia individually or in groups was not new to the Portuguese episcopate (although not on the terms of that of 1268), the truth is that the power of the king himself never seemed to be in question, despite the repeated papal threats — and never was his removal even considered. The goal was to correct and impose corrections, a lengthy prolonged process due to the instability of the papal throne that characterized the 1260s and the 1270s, and to the frailty or the divisions amongst the prelates. The growing importance of royal service to the construction of many individual career pathways resulted in a rising dependence of the prelates vis-à-vis the king. However, this relationship cannot only be read as being limited to the effects of this intervention. It became clear to some, such as Bishop Mateus of Lisbon, that staying equidistant in the conflict at the Curia was the best solution. Others, like Durando of Évora, did not hesitate to take sides with the king and stand by him, even under the threat of Gregory X’s bull, which the king plainly declared an ‘ordenatio diabolica’. By his side, Dominican and Franciscan friars and members of military orders upheld the royal discourse. Registered as direct speech in the proceedings of the legateship of Friar Nicholas, the king’s speech sought to reach an agreement with the bishops, but only under certain conditions. Such conditions granted the king a new position regarding the Church, and this is an element of continuity between the reigns of Afonso III and Dinis. Just as Afonso refused Friar Nicholas’s proposed concord, prevented by the sudden death of John XXI, Dinis also imposed conditions in the document ensuring the agreement and registering its memory. After all, his crown, royal majesty, and royal rights were at stake and, in that regard, the policy adopted by both kings seemed consistent. The archbishop and the bishops negotiating this document knew this quite well. Their appeal to the pope, to receive instructions on the manner of procedure, and their repeated affirmation of King Dinis’s desire to reach an agreement indicate their wish to reach a conclusion rather than maintain confrontation. Royal service and loyalty to the king did not result in the rupture of the hypothetical cohesion or identity of the episcopal group. They just transformed 72

Denton, ‘The Making of the Articuli Cleri of 1316’.

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)

61

it, connecting it indelibly to the circles of power and reinforcing their status as political protagonists. The destiny of the kingdom was increasingly the destiny of these bishops.

Works Cited Primary Sources Berger, E., Les Registres d’Innocent IV (1243–1254) (Paris, 1881–1921) Brandão, Frei António, Monarquia Lusitana, Parte Quarta (Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional – Casa da Moeda, 1974) Costa, António Domingues de Sousa, Monumenta Portugaliae Vaticana (Montariol: Franciscana, 1968) Diplomatário da Sé de Viseu (1078–1278), ed. by Leontina Ventura and João da Cunha Matos, Documentos, 1 (Coimbra: Inst. de Estudos Medievais Centro de História da Sociedade e da Cultura Imprensa da Univ. de Coimbra, 2010) Domínguez Sánchez, Santiago, Documentos de Martín  IV (1281–1285): referentes a España, Colección Monumenta hispaniae pontificia, 6 (León: Universidad de León, Área de Publ, 2010) —— , Documentos de Nicolás III (1277–1280) referentes a España (León: Universidad de León, Servicio de Publicaciones, 1999) Herculano, Alexandre, Portugaliae monumenta historica: leges et consuetudines, vol.  i.2 (Olisipone: Academiae Scientiarum Olisiponensis, 1858) Jordan, E., Les Registres de Clément IV (Paris, 1904) Linehan, Peter, Portugalia Pontificia: Materials for the History of Portugal and the Papacy, 1198–1417, Cultura Portuguesa (Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 2013) Ordenações Afonsinas, Cultura portuguesa, 2nd edn (Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 1998) Prou, M., Les Registres d’Honorius IV (Paris, 1888) Rodríguez de Lama, I., La documentación pontíficia de Alejandro IV (1254–1261) (Rome: Instituto Espanol de Historia Eclesiástica, 1976) Santos, Maria José Azevedo, Um obituário do Mosteiro de S. Vicente de Fora: a comemoração dos que passaram deste mundo (Lisboa: Academia Portuguesa da Historia, 2008) Ventura, Leontina, and António Resende de Oliveira, Chancelaria de D. Afonso  III, Documentos, 3 vols (Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 2006)

62

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

Secondary Sources Ambler, S. T., Bishops in the Political Community of England, 1213–1272 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) Andrade, Amélia Aguiar, ‘Les Enquêtes royales au Portugal, 1220–1343’, in Quand gouverner c’est enquêter: Les Pratiques politiques de l’enquête princière (Occident, xiiie– xive siècles). Actes du colloque international d’Aix­en Provence et Marseille, 19–21 mars 2009, ed. by Thierry Pécout (Paris: De Boccard, 2010), pp. 23–42 —— ,  ‘Luís Krus e as inquirições régias medievais: Percurso Através de uma reflexão inovadora’, in Inquirir na idade média: espaços, protagonistas e poderes (sécs xii–xiv). Tributo a Luís Krus, ed.  by Amélia Aguiar Andrade and João Luis Fontes (Lisboa: Instituto de Estudos Medievais, 2015), pp. 13–25 Antunes, José, ‘Mateus (1262–1282)’, in Bispos e arcebispos de Lisboa, dir. by José Luís Fontes (Lisboa: Livros Horizonte, 2018), pp. 195–212 Cardoso, A. Brito, Catálogo dos bispos da Diocese de Coimbra (Coimbra: [n.pub.], 1985) Cheney, Christopher R., From Beckett to Langton: English Church Government, 1170–1213 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956) —— ,  ‘King John and the Papal Interdict’, Bulletin of John Rylands Library, 31 (1945), 295–317 Clanchy, M. T., From Memory to Written Record: England, 1066–1307, 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993) Clarke, Peter D., The Interdict in the Thirteenth Century: A Question of Collective Guilt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) Costa, António Domingues de Sousa, ‘As concordatas portuguesas’, Itinerarium, 1966, 24–46 —— ,  ‘Concílio Provincial de Compostela realizado em 1292, com a participação dos bispos portugueses, e a data do efectuado no tempo do Arcebispo D. João Arias’, Itinerarium, 1987, 395–470 —— , ‘D. Frei Telo, Arcebispo Primaz as Concordatas de D. Dinis’, in IX centenário da dedicação Da Sé de Braga: Congresso Internaciona. Actas, vol. ii.1: A catedral de Braga na históia e na arte (Braga: Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 1990), pp. 283–316 Cunha, Maria Cristina, and Maria João Oliveira Silva, ‘The King’s Service and God’s Service: Attitudes of a Prelate from Porto, D. Vicente Mendes (1260–1296)’, in Carreiras Eclesiásticas no Ocidente Cristão (séc. xii–xiv) / Ecclesiastical Careers in Western Christianity (12th–14th c.) (Lisboa: Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 2007), pp. 259–67 Denton, J. H., ‘The Making of the Articuli Cleri of 1316’, English Historical Review, 101 ( July 1986), pp. 564–95 Farelo, Mário, ‘O episcopado após 1147’, in História da Diocese de Viseu (séc. vi–1505), ed. by José Pedro Paiva, 3 vols (Viseu: Diocese de Viseu e Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, 2016), i, 185–249 Fernandes, Hermenegildo, D. Sancho  II: tragédia, Reis de Portugal, 4 (Mem Martins: Circulo de Leitores, 2006)

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)

63

Ferreira, José Augusto, Memorias archeologico­historicas da cidade do Porto (Braga: Cruz Editorial, 1923) Herculano, Alexandre, História de Portugal: desde o começo da monarquia até o fim do reinado de Afonso III, 4 vols (Lisboa: Livraria Bertrand, 1982) Jones, W. R., ‘Bishops, Politics, and the Two Laws: The Gravamina of the English Clergy, 1237–1399’, Speculum, 41.2 (1966), 209–45 Linehan, Peter, ‘A Papal Legation and its Aftermath: Cardinal John of Abbeville in Spain and Portugal, 1228–1229’, in Historical Memory and Clerical Activity in Medieval Spain and Portugal, ed.  by Peter Linehan (Farnham: Ashgate Variorum, 2012), pp. 236–56 —— , The Spanish Church and the Papacy in the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) —— ,  ‘The Spanish Church Revisited: The Episcopal Gravamina of 1279’, in Authority and Power: Studies on Medieval Law and Government Presented to Walter Ullmann on his Seventieth Birthday, ed.  by Brian Tierney and Peter Linehan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), pp. 127–47 Marques, José, ‘Afonso  X e a Diocese de Silves’, in Relações entre Portugal e Castela nos finais da Idade Média (Braga: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian/Junta Nacional de Investigação Cientifica e Tecnológica, 1994), pp. 105–23 Marques, Maria Alegria Fernandes, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso  III: 1245–1279 ([n.p.]: [n.pub.], 1990) Martins, Armando Alberto, O mosteiro de Santa Cruz de Coimbra na Idade Média (Lisboa: Centro de História da Universidade de Lisboa, 2003) Mattoso, José, ‘1258–1264: o triunfo da monarquia portuguesa. Ensaio de história política’, in Naquele Tempo: Ensaios de História Medieval (Lisboa: Circulo de Leitores, 2000), pp. 529–60 —— , ‘Dois séculos de vicissitudes políticas’, in História de Portugal, dir. by José Mattoso (Lisboa: Círculo de Leitores, 1993), ii: A Monarquia Feudal, 23–161 —— , Identificação de um país: ensaio sobre as origens de Portugal, 1096–1325, Imprensa universitária, 45–46, 2 vols (Lisboa: Estampa, 1985) Meirinhos, José Francisco, Pedro Hispano (século xiii) (Porto: [n.pub.], 2002) Morujão, Maria do Rosário Barbosa, A  Sé de Coimbra: a instituição e a chancelaria, 1080–1318, Textos universitários de ciências sociais e humanas (Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, 2010) —— , ‘La Famille d’Ébrard et le Clergé de Coimbra aux xiiie et xive siècles’, in A Igreja e o clero português no contexto europeu (Lisboa: Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 2005), pp. 77–94 O’Callaghan, Joseph, ‘The Ecclesiastical Estate in the Cortes of Leon-Castille, 1252–1350’, Catholic Historical Review, 67 (1981), 185–213 Pécout, Thierry, ed., Quand gouverner c’est enquêter: Les Pratiques politiques de l’enquête princière (Occident, xiiie–xive siècles). Actes du Colloque International d’Aix­En Provence et Marseille, 19–21 mars 2009 (Paris: De Boccard, 2010)

64

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar

Pizarro, José Augusto P. de Sotomaior, D. Dinis, Reis de Portugal, 6 (Lisboa: Círculo de Leitores, 2005) Pradalié, Gérard, ‘Quercynois et autres méridionaux au Portugal à la fin du xiiie et au xive siècle: l, exemple de l’église de Coimbra’, Annales du Midi: Revue Archéologique, Historique et Philologique de la France Méridionale, 1982, 369–86 Rodrigues, Ana Maria S. A., Os capitulares bracarenses (1245–1374): notícias biográficas, História religiosa, 5 (Lisboa: Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa-Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 2005) Varandas, José Manuel Henriques, ‘Bonus rex ou rex inutilus: as periferias e o centro, redes de poder no reinado de D. Sancho  II (1223–1248)’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lisbon, 2003) Ventura, Leontina, D. Afonso III, Reis de Portugal, 5 (Lisboa: Círculo de Leitores, 2006) —— , ‘A nobreza de Corte de Afonso III’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Coimbra, 1992) Vilar, Hermínia Vasconcelos, As dimensões de um poder: a Diocese de Évora na Idade Média (Lisboa: Estampa, 1999) —— , ‘Inquirir e doar no final do século xiii: Viseu e a diocese no contexto das inquirições de D. Dinis’, Beira Alta, 76 (2017), 31–47 —— ,  ‘The “Life and Times” of Martinho Peres de Oliveira: From Évora to Braga’, in Medieval Studies in Honour of Peter Linehan, ed. by Francisco J. Hernández, Rocío Sánchez Ameijeiras, and Emma Falque (Florence: SISMEL - Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2018), pp. 323–44 Watts, John, The Making of Polities: Europe, 1300–1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)

Bishops, Nepotism, and Social Mobility in Central and Northern Italy in the Fourteenth Century Stefano G. Magni*

W

hen analysing successful social strategies for a clerical career in Western Europe during the Middle Ages and in the modern times, nepotism can be a useful concept. It received an institutional seal of approval with the first election of a cardinal nepote in 1538 by Pope Paul III, and it represents a classic theme of the modern history of the Church.1 The nepotism of bishops in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is a complex problem.2 Among the many questions that arise, it is worthwhile focusing at least on two of them. First, we should seek to define what is meant by nepotism in this research context. Secondly, can we find evidence of nepotism in the * I am particularly grateful to Sarah Thomas, who has helped me to write the paper in English. The reader should know that any remaining faults are definitely my own. 1

Carocci, Il nepotismo nel medioevo, p. 11. A substantial bibliography exists about the bishoprics of late medieval Italy and it can be summarized as follows: De Sandre Gasparini and others, Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal xiv alla metà del xvi secolo; Pievi e parrocchie in Italia nel Basso Medioevo; Dal pulpito alla cattedra. A model synthesis about this world is Ronzani, ‘Vescovi, capitoli e strategie famigliari nell’Italia comunale’. See also Pellegrini, Vescovo e città, pp. 1–14. For the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see Sergi, ‘Poteri temporali del vescovo’; Brentano, Two Churches. See also Gamberini, ‘La nobiltà del pastore’; Rossi, ‘Vescovi nel basso medioevo’. 2 Reinhard, ‘Nepotismus’. Stefano G. Magni ([email protected]) is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’. His primary research interests focus on society, economy, and religion in Italy and Mediterranean Europe during the late Middle Ages. Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 65–83 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120612 BREPOLS

66

Stefano G. Magni

central and northern Italian bishoprics of the late Middle Ages and early modern period? It is well known, and often highlighted by scholars, that central and northern Italy shows distinct local differences in diocesan government. It is important to underline these key distinctions once again since the aim of my text is to compare multiple urban cases. 3 Yet when considering the individual, and sometimes stark, differences within the diocese between the city and the rest of the ecclesiastical institutions, and then between different bishoprics, I have to admit that it is difficult to place nepotism in any rigidly defined research framework. Nepotism therefore needs to be considered as an integral part of wider questions about social mobility and the history of the Church in the late Middle Ages.4 As it can be observed in the Iberian peninsula, a career in the urban church could make it possible for a person or family to rise in local society, and a bishopric or the major offices in the chapter could allow people to strengthen social agency and give them the possibility to create extensive patronage networks.5 However, it can be hard to define and understand nepotism. The concept has been rarely used by Italian scholars studying the bishops of the late Middle Ages, and this absence can be explained by a general lack of communication between social and economic historians and those of the Church.6 In addition to that, when studying local cases, the investigation of very specific periods of urban church history has been preferred by historians. This is particularly evident during those moments in which the chapter had a major role electing the bishop from the twelfth to the early fourteenth century. That seems to happen because of the common interest in celebrating local ‘conciliarism’ as a specific aspect of a well-ruled bishopric. Vice versa, there are no new studies dealing with the phase in which the pope started himself to choose the bishops, even for the first decades of the fourteenth century, when the controversial 3 Menant, L’Italie des communes; Maire Vigueur, Cavaliers et citoyens; Franceschi and Taddei, Le città italiane nel Medioevo. 4 Carocci, ‘Italian Church and Social Mobility’, p. 122; Carocci, La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo; Tanzini and Tognetti, La mobilità sociale nel medioevo italiano; Carbonetti Vendittelli and Vendittelli, La mobilità sociale nel medioevo italiano; Gamberini, La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano; Carocci and De Vincentiis, La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano. 5 Diaz Ibáñez, ‘La formación de las élites eclesiásticas’, p. 310. 6 Reinhard, ‘Möglichkeiten und Grenzen’, Prosperi, ‘Dominus beneficiorum’, and Bizzocchi, ‘Clero e chiesa nella società italiana alla fine del Medioevo’. In the last decade the problem was investigated again in Guasco, ‘Storia della Chiesa in Italia’; in that volume, see Chittolini, ‘L’età pretridentina’ and Varanini, ‘La ricerca storica sulle chiese locali in Italia’.

bishops, nepotism, and social mobility

67

process started.7 This national metanarrative has also been deeply influenced by the events of the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trento.8 It should also be remembered that the ecclesiastical and secular worlds in Italy during the late Middle Ages were mutually complementary, and it can be very difficult to separate the two fields.9 The methodology used in my research also forced me to make some complex choices, since I found it complicated to identify and quantify nepotism in the sources. Scholars have pointed out how nepotism remains poorly defined in the documents.10 There are late medieval literary texts which directly speak of nepotism practices such as those of Salimbene de Adam, Dante, or Bindo Bonichi, but I believe that nepotism is for them a mental representation, conceptually defined and motivated by political action. 11 Although the accusations made by such writers could have been well founded, they show moral and functional purposes which fail to help actually verify nepotism, even if they are essential to a good knowledge of the theme and communal political thought in the age of Dante. Then there is single or serial evidence in the local documentation that allows the study of nepotism, whether the goal is searching for ecclesiastical grants to familial members of positions or functions in the diocese, financial connections, property transfers, and political protectorates.12 Among the useful sources for research, it is important to remember the papal inquisitions on the behaviour of single bishops.13 This type of source is deeply influenced by the political context, so even there particular attention is required while making use of them in order to understand better the kind of nepotism recorded. 7

Varanini, ‘Strategie familiari per la carriera ecclesiastica’. Emich, ‘Dalla Chiesa tridentina al mito di Trento’, pp. 61–66. 9 Chittolini, ‘The Papacy and the Italian States’, p. 469. 10 Carocci, ‘Nepotismi di curia e mobilità sociale fra xiii e xv secolo’. 11 Bindo Bonichi was an expert politician in Siena at the beginning of the fourteenth century. He acted also as moral poet, writing the lyric ‘Contro la chiericia disonesta’, collected in Bonichi, Rime, pp. 93–98. Bindo’s rhymes are quoted in Brentano, ‘Vescovi e collocazione socio-culturale del clero parrocchiale’, p. 241. See also Ragni, ‘Bonichi Bindo’. Considerations on how Salimbene de Adam and Dante coped with ecclesiastical nepotism can be found in Carocci, Il nepotismo nel medioevo, p. 125 and pp. 143–44. 12 An example of a useful source are the episcopal registers, formally described in Olivieri, ‘I registri vescovili nel Piemonte medievale’, pp. 7–8. A general survey on ecclesiastical sources is Cammarosano, Italia medievale, pp. 225–38. 13 Rigon and Veronese, L’età dei processi. 8

Stefano G. Magni

68

These considerations bring us to the last point of my introduction. I am persuaded that there is a common weakness in the way Italian historians have studied episcopal nepotism. The scattered and still unquantifiable state of the sources has reverberated on the scholarly debate, which has concentrated more on the perception than on an effective and undoubtedly tough verification of nepotism. It is common for historians in Italy to note that one bishop may have practiced nepotism, even though no accurate investigation of the documentation has ever followed this kind of observation. My aim here is to explore three topics: first, the problem of nepotism; second, to describe some case studies which have been analysed to identify the nepotistic practice; third, I show how the data analysis has raised new questions. Before moving to discuss the collected results, I want to define the kind of nepotism presented here. Nepotism can be thought of as the practice of granting institutional wealth to kin or to very close friends, generally patrimonial or rentoriented wealth. Studying nepotism in the Roman Curia from the point of view of popes and cardinals, Sandro Carocci identified a specific type of nepotism, called local or minor nepotism, perpetuated in every corner of Western Christianity by bishops, abbots, archpriests, canons, and those other clergymen of unstable economic conditions. Nepotism could be performed by bishops with the granting of goods, benefices, or offices to relations. In this direction, it is important to concentrate on the possessions that the bishops gave to family members and fellow citizens. These wealth transfers might have taken place through the granting of jobs to relations (or family members) in the bishop’s Curia, highly or lowly paid offices in the chapter, and in local parishes, or patronage.14 I have worked on six cases (Padova, Pisa, Siena, Parma, Gubbio, and Asti) that I find particularly relevant for the current availability of studies on both their urban history and evidence of nepotistic behaviour in their churches. Nepotism practiced inside the familia of the bishop is a highly promising field of research.15 Turning to the case studies, I would like to focus on two examples from Padova and Pisa. For Padova the case of Ildebrandino Conti can be highlighted.16 He was a member of a family of Roman barons, a jurist, and an expert in classical culture.17 Even after his election to the bishopric of Padova, he continued to practice a high political role for the pope all around Italy and 14

Carocci, Il nepotismo nel medioevo, p. 9 and p. 63. Cipriani, ‘Familia ideale e familia reale’, pp. 389–90; Rossi, Gli uomini del vescovo, p. 7; Sambin, ‘La familia di un vescovo italiano del ’300’, pp. 237–38. 16 Kohl, ‘Conti, Ildebrandino’. 17 Carocci, Baroni di Roma, p. 376, n. 28. 15

bishops, nepotism, and social mobility

69

Europe. He governed as Bishop of Padua from 1319 to 1352, but with long phases of absence from the seat. Ildebrandino’s behaviour was not out of ordinary; as studies have shown, itinerant bishops were quite common in late medieval Italy. In the episcopal familia, members of his family and fellow citizens can be found, and many of them received grants at the local church. Some of his more trusted kin had roles in the Curia or in the familia, as well as benefices in the diocese.18 A case in point was Francesco di Giovanni Pedone, general vicar of the bishop from 1333 to 1338, who before and after his vicariate received the benefits of an archdeaconry and a canonry in Padova.19 The second case is that of Simone Saltarelli, Archbishop of Pisa from 1323 to 1342.20 In this case, it is possible to identify at least ten nephews in the episcopal familia, and many fellow citizens coming from Monte di Croce, a rural but dynamic centre in the Valdisieve region, near Florence, where the Saltarelli family came from.21 The case of this family is particularly interesting both for researching episcopal nepotism and understanding more clearly the dynamics of social mobility. The Saltarelli family had been aiming to obtain ecclesiastical wealth even outside Pisa, because of a desperate need to preserve their lineage. They had been economically and politically weakened by the violent political struggles which went on in Tuscany during the first decades of the fourteenth century.22 In this case, nepotism could stop the social descent of the Saltarelli family, and it shows its capacity for arresting and reversing declining social mobility. It is important to underline how this bishop also used to practice clientelism. He was transferred by the pope from Parma to Pisa, and he arrived in Pisa with a group of clergymen from Parma, for example Guglielmo de Gogis, provost at the Baptistery of Parma, who was named pontifical ambassador by the canons of the cathedral of Pisa in 1324.23 18

Sambin, ‘La familia di un vescovo italiano del ’300’, pp. 238–39. Canon of Saint Peter in Rome from 1329 to 1347, canon of Segni and Sens from 1327 to 1333, and after being vicar general of the bishop between 1333 and 1338, he was granted the archdeaconry of Piove di Sacco between 1338 and 1347 and then a canonry in Padua: Sambin, ‘La familia di un vescovo italiano del ’300’, p. 240. 20 Luzzati, ‘Simone Saltarelli’; Ronzani, ‘“Figli del commune” o fuoriusciti?’, pp. 800–16; see also Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, p. 925. 21 Luzzati, ‘Simone Saltarelli’, pp. 1648–49, n. 6. 22 Raveggi and others, Ghibellini, guelfi e popolo grasso, p. 46 and p. 72; see also Diacciati, Popolani e magnati, pp. 232–33; Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, pp. 329ff.; and also Zorzi, La trasformazione di un quadro politico, p. 120. 23 Ronzani, ‘“Figli del commune” o fuoriusciti?’, pp. 802–03. 19

Stefano G. Magni

70

Episcopal nepotism in the local ecclesiastical institutions was more generally practised outside the episcopal familia, through the granting of properties, rights, and jurisdictions of the mensa or benefices (with or without cure), and roles in the Curia. In order to examine these kinds of varied and common forms of the nepotistic practice, I found it useful to adopt a comparative approach and therefore to examine cases of nepotism in four different urban examples. The first example is Siena. Here the bishop had fewer seigneurial rights compared to those of other Tuscan bishops. However, these rights were clearly defined, and for this reason, they only became very attractive to the urban political power of the commune of Siena by the end of the thirteenth century. It is important to notice that in Siena a special ‘harmony’ between the two powers had been preserved from the end of the twelfth century.24 Thanks to this equilibrium, the bishop retained hegemony over part of the territory of Siena, which from the eleventh century had been called Vescovado.25 In this context, the case of the Malavolti family is of great interest. From 1282 to 1371 every elected bishop in Siena was a member of this family, except in the years 1307 to 1317, when the Dominican Bishop Ruggeri ruled.26 From the end of the twelfth century, the Malavolti succeeded politically and economically among the families which ruled the commune as milites, the peculiar military urban aristocracy that dominated the Italian communes before the thirteenth century.27 They were members of the group of families that experienced (or even benefited from) the economic growth of Siena which occurred between the end of the 24

Pellegrini, Chiesa e città. About the fourteenth century, see Nardi, ‘I vescovi di Siena e la curia pontificia’. See also Franco, ‘Episcopal Power and the Late Medieval State’. 25 Cammarosano, Tradizione documentaria e storia cittadina, p. 37. The bishop assumed control of a portion of territory defined as districtus and organized in the centres of Crevole, Murlo, Casciano, Vallerano, and other castles and villages in the diocesan area lying between the Ombrone River and the southern tract of the Merse and the Farma Rivers. 26 Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, ed. by Eubel, p. 446. The chronologies of the bishoprics quoted here in the text refer to data presented by Eubel. On the potential and the limits of Eubel’s data, see Ronzani, ‘Note e osservazioni sui vescovi mendicanti in Italia centrale’, pp. 134–35. Biographical profiles of the Malavolti bishops are in Bonucci, ‘Malavolti, Rinaldo’; Bonucci, ‘Malavolti, Donosdeo’; Bonucci, ‘Malavolti, Azzolino’. 27 On the militia, see Maire Vigueur, Cavaliers et citoyens. In Cammarosano, Tradizione documentaria e storia cittadina, p. 56 and p. 37, it is noted that an essential role in the commune was played by Filippo, member of the Sienese consular aristocracy and second podestà of Siena between 1199 and 1201, who opted for an ecclesiastical career for his descendants. However, at this point there was still an absence of an institutional relationship between the consular aristocracy and the bishopric.

bishops, nepotism, and social mobility

71

twelfth and the first two decades of the thirteenth century, and they widened the patrimonial horizons aiming at castles and properties outside the city.28 Bradley Franco’s studies have demonstrated how the Malavoltis developed a special and strong relationship with the Dominicans from 1226.29 This close relationship opened the doors of the local ecclesiastical institution to the family, and it should be considered as a key factor in an extraordinary nepotistic behaviour. From the end of the thirteenth century, the presence of the family in the local church was almost irrepressible. This nepotistic strength is clearly evident in the fourteenth century with the case of Bishop Donosdeo Malavolti. He was the best organizer of the ‘Malavolti system’ and of the nepotistic practice on which this system was largely based. It is possible to observe here a clear case of familial privatization of previously episcopal properties. The case should also be interpreted as an overlapping of ecclesiastical offices and benefices with private goods, particularly castles like Gavorrano, Pari, and Castiglion del Bosco. In addition to this cut-throat competition to control castles, this extremely aggressive aristocratic bishop also focused on the nepotistic management of the major ecclesiastical positions. He granted four major positions in the cathedral chapter to his kin, as well as other money-producing rights in the diocese. Donosdeo worked very hard to obsessively push away the other major Sienese aristocratic families from the resources of the urban church. That is why during a long rule, it is impossible to find any member of the most powerful families of Siena like the Tolomei, Piccolomini, or Salimbeni among the directors of the diocese. There was a clear intention of the Malavolti to gain absolute control of the chapter, and the aim was to ensure continuity of the familial hegemony over the urban church. The open hostility provoked a violent conflict between the Piccolomini and the Malavolti which concentrated on the property of the castle of Castiglion del Bosco. This Sienese aristocratic feud intertwined with the papal programme of centralization and control of local churches in 1338 when the pope ordered a detailed inquiry into the episcopal government of Donosdeo. Recently the sources of this papal intervention were remarkably analysed by Julien Théry.30 Unfortunately, there is a lack of research on the later history of the ‘Malavolti system’, and little is yet known about Bishop Azzolino Malavolti elected in 1351. 28

Bowsky, Un comune italiano nel Medioevo, p. 72 and p. 110; Milani, ‘Uno snodo nella storia dell’esclusione’; see also Mucciarelli, ‘Il traghettamento dei mercatores’ and Cammarosano, ‘Il comune di Siena dalla solidarietà imperiale al guelfismo’. 29 Franco, ‘Church and Family’, p. 307. 30 Théry, ‘Faide nobiliaire et justice inquisitoire de la papauté à Sienne’.

Stefano G. Magni

72

Moving to Parma, it will be possible to concentrate once again on the first half of the fourteenth century with the case of the Rossi family. It must be noted, however, that in Parma episcopal nepotism can also be studied in the thirteenth century with the cases of the Fieschi and the Sanvitale families.31 Unfortunately, research on this subject has yet to be undertaken. Among the noble families of Parma, the example of the Rossi has been properly studied.32 Scholars have noted that in the case of Parma, it is impossible to find a clear and extensive process of urban control and regulation of the territory as was common in other Italian urban contexts. In this situation, the Rossi family aimed to establish local domination. One effective tool for this aim was definitely the direct nepotism of Bishop Ugo Rossi from 1323 to 1377, funded by the expenses of the rich properties of the episcopal mensa. The success of the Rossi family on the local political scene took place within the institutions of the comune di popolo, the urban political regime of the guilds. However, hard evidence of their efforts to gain supremacy within the urban society involving the Rossi can be found in events in the ecclesiastical world of Parma in 1324. In that year the twenty-three-year-old chaplain of the cardinal-legate Bertrando del Poggetto, Ugolino Rossi, became the bishop. As Marco Gentile noted, during the fourteenth century the Bishop of Parma was the most important owner of seigneurial properties and rights in the territory.33 And in this period the Rossi family planned a large-scale privatization of episcopal properties. It is important to remember that during those years the political influence of the Rossi was also strong in the lay communal institutions, and from 1322 to 1326 Rolando and Marsilio Rossi ruled the city as an urban personal domain. It seems that episcopal nepotism could represent an important element for an urban lordship. Nevertheless, this project of urban and territorial familial domination based also on episcopal nepotism was stopped, among other reasons, by the military aggression of the Della Scala of Verona. The expansion of the Della Scala fostered aristocratic competition within the society of Parma and gave strength 31

Alberzoni, ‘La chiesa cittadina, i monasteri e gli ordini mendicanti’. On the Fieschi in Genua and in Parma, see Petti Balbi, Governare la città, pp. 83–98; Ronzani, ‘Vescovi, capitoli e strategie famigliari nell’Italia comunale’, pp. 121–22. 32 Gentile, ‘La formazione del dominio dei Rossi tra xiv e xv secolo’; Gentile, ‘Giustizia, protezione, amicizia’. A narrative source for the events of this period is the ‘Chronicon Parmense’, ed. by Bonazzi. 33 Gentile, ‘La formazione del dominio dei Rossi tra xiv e xv secolo’, p. 25. The properties passing to the Rossi are Berceto, Bardone, Corniglio, Bosco, Roccaprebalza, Roccaferrara, Corniana, and Castrignano; see also Gentile, Terra e poteri, p. 116, and Greci, Parma medievale, p. 124.

bishops, nepotism, and social mobility

73

to the resistance of the Da Correggio, a familial group particularly hostile to the Rossi, and it fatally hit the military resources of the Rossi, which had to be fully absorbed by an expensive defensive strategy. Another relevant case of the relationship between social status and episcopal nepotism is the Gabrielli family of Gubbio, which has been accurately studied by Alberto Luongo.34 In the second half of thirteenth century they took part in the political life of the commune, and by the end of the century, they were dominating the scene. But only in the first two decades of the fourteenth century did they start aiming at ecclesiastical resources, even taking an aggressive approach, and the change in social strategy coincided with the intention of the group to create a lordship in the territory.35 By the end of the thirteenth century, the Gabrielli had gained a considerable ability in the field of law and in the running of the popular political system of the commune.36 However, in the fourteenth century, it is possible to observe a change in their interests, and they started focusing on the acquisition of land and rights in the contado.37 And similarly to Parma, the route they followed to reach a ‘perfect’ seigneurial status was essentially achieved through the ecclesiastical career and nepotism in the chapter of Pietro dei Gabrielli, Bishop of Gubbio from 1327 to 1344.38 By the beginning of the fourteenth century the family had started placing their members within the local ecclesiastical institutions, and between 1313 and 1318 there is a strong presence of members of the Gabrielli family as canons. The game-changer, however, was the nepotism practised by Pietro. On 16 May 1337, the bishop granted a lifelong land rent in the diocese without asking for anything in exchange for one of his cousins. It has to be imagined that these lands were presumably suitable for arable farming. The grant added to other episodes of Pietro’s privatization of Church resources. The next case is that of the Malabaila of Asti. Recent research has shown how during the last decade of the thirteenth century in Asti, aristocratic families concentrated their interests in the properties of the chapter, in order to bypass the new constraining legislation of the popular regime which aimed at limiting the acquisition of land by their opponents on the political scene, 34

Luongo, Gubbio nel Trecento. Merli and Tiberino, Il castello eugubino di Carbonana, pp. 19ff. 36 Ciappelli, ‘Gabrielli, Cante’. 37 I use the word contado with a general meaning of the territory ruled by a communal Italian city between the twelfth and fourteenth century. 38 Merli and Tiberino, Il castello eugubino di Carbonana, pp. 40–46. 35

Stefano G. Magni

74

the ‘magnates’.39 Nevertheless, it can be noticed that with the successful strategy of the Popolo, the balance of forces within the ecclesiastical institutions changed and the role of families of the Popolo in the chapter was strengthened. The new social hegemony in Asti meant a different phase of the competition to dominate the episcopal resources, and this cut out the old noble families.40 At the beginning of the fourteenth century this strategy represented a real possibility for internal social mobility of the aristocrats, as well as a means of social distinction among the families of the Popolo. Nepotism could make the processes of social mobility faster, more productive, and more explicit, as it can be seen in Asti. It is valuable to focus on the life of Baldracco Malabaila, an example that seems somewhat eccentric.41 He was a member of the family banking company which also had interests in acquiring castles in the territory of Asti.42 As recorded in the sources, Baldracco lived as a layman before the family company started to do business with the papal Curia in Avignon.43 The Malabaila replaced the Florentine companies as unique money lenders to the pope from 1342 to 1362.44 Baldracco studied as a man of business, operating in 1343 as a merchant in Bruges. There is a total lack of information about the relationship between Baldracco and ecclesiastical institutions before 1346 when he obtained a canonry in Lincoln. Scholars had a hard time describing how Baldracco lived during those years, and Renato Bordone tried to solve the puzzle supposing that he had ecclesiastical education in Florence, since evidence of him staying in the Tuscan city is dated to 1341. However, this point needs to be discussed once again, and it is important to consider that Florence was at that time the most dynamic centre for financial transactions in western Europe. Baldracco’s career started with the prebend in England, and at the same time he continued working for the family business in London. It is relevant to note that his nephew Giovanni was a canon in York in 1346, as well as the fact that Baldracco’s prebend became a bone of contention in England. The accusation against the new clergyman was that he was nothing more than a moneylender. In 1349 he was replaced as canon in England, and although he had only had a short three-year career in the Church, he was elected in that very same year as Bishop of Asti. 39

Pia, La giustizia del vescovo, pp. 163–65, p. 173. Bordone, ‘Dalle origini comunali alla costruzione dei patriziati’, p. 111. 41 Bordone, ‘Malabaila, Baldracco’. 42 Bordone, ‘Malabaila, Giacomo’. See also Castellani, Gli uomini d’affari astigiani. 43 Bordone, ‘Malabaila, Baldracco’. 44 Chiaudano, ‘Note sui mercanti astigiani’; Renouard, Les Relations des Papes d’Avignon, pp. 111ff., and p. 16 about Baldracco. 40

bishops, nepotism, and social mobility

75

In Asti, the former bishops had basically fled the urban space, installing the Curia in castle del Bene, at the very centre of the seigneurial episcopal properties. There Baldracco adopted the role of the great ecclesiastical lord very quickly, even though he had been living as an international merchant until just a few years before. He promptly started to administrate the many but in certain cases unclear feudal relationships of the bishop in the diocese. In the Curia of Baldracco, his brothers Antonio and Percivalle Malabaila had several offices. A remarkable episode of privatization of episcopal resources concerned the episcopal castle of Monticello. Until 1350 the Malabaila controlled this castle, but they had it just in partial property, and Baldracco directly gave the castle to the family in the form of an emphyteusis, a type of contract which made the family rights to the castle ready to become perpetual. However, it seems that the political forces behind the canonry put enough pressure on the bishop to reverse this decision, as he actually did in 1352 when he revoked the act. Thinking of episcopal nepotism in the ‘age of Dante’ means that one has to admit that there are several questions which remain unanswered, and there is still research to be done, for instance in the cases of Florence,45 Arezzo,46 Bologna,47 Brescia,48 and Como,49 and the nepotism of the papal legate Gregorio da Montelongo.50 However, there are two problems to point out here. First, there is more to be said about what kind of episcopal resource was more often exploited by nepotistic bishops in central and northern Italy in the fourteenth century. The answer seems to be castles. It is possible to recognize a trend in the social behaviour of urban aristocracies, and it shows that the acquisition of the castles of the mensa, when present, increased the possibility of greater patrimonial inheritance for noble 45

Dameron, Episcopal Power and Florentine Society; Dameron, Florence and its Church in the Age of Dante; Dameron, ‘Società e devozione nella Firenze medievale’; and the recent Tanzini, ‘Il vescovo e la città’. An important general model for the Tuscan Church in the late Middle Ages is Bizzocchi, Chiesa e potere nella Toscana del Quattrocento. 46 Ciccaglioni, ‘Tra unificazione e pluralismo’; Barlucchi, ‘Note sulla signoria aretina del vescovo Guido Tarlati’; see also Scharf, Potere e società ad Arezzo. 47 Paolini, ‘Storia della Chiesa di Bologna medievale’, pp. lv–lvii; Collavini, ‘I poteri signorili degli Ubaldini nel contesto della signoria rurale toscana’. 48 Varanini, ‘Maggi, Berardo’; see also Varanini, ‘Maggi, Emanuele’, Varanini, ‘Maggi, Federico’, Varanini, ‘Maggi, Maffeo’. See also Negro, ‘I signori vescovi’. 49 Canobbio, ‘Tra episcopio e cattedrale’, pp. 260–61. 50 Alberzoni, ‘Gregorio da Montelongo’; Alberzoni, ‘Le armi del legato’; see also Maire Vigueur, ‘Religione e politica nella propaganda pontificia’, pp. 75ff.; and Tilatti, ‘Legati del papa e propaganda nel Duecento’.

Stefano G. Magni

76

families. And thanks to this increase, specific groups could dominate the city and stay inside the general process of urban and rural ‘seignurialisation’ which is at the centre of a recent Italian research project, started in 2017 and funded by the Italian government.51 That applies to the cases of the Malavolti and the Rossi, where a dynamic of vigorous ascending social mobility is more evident and efficient than in those of the Gabrielli and the Malabaila. Nevertheless, this assessment of social dynamic was undertaken through a survey of published sources, which may be insufficient, and in-depth archival research is still to be done. Episcopal nepotism during the late communal times remains an open problem to be tackled with further research. Second, it is possible to reflect about the purpose of episcopal nepotism. It seems that when the chapter was strictly controlled by the bishop, nepotism worked as an efficient tool for the families to reach a solid aristocratization or a clear distinction among the lineages. In some communal cities of Italy in the fourteenth century, there are parallels to those noted by Roberto Bizzocchi in his study of the Church of Florence in the fifteenth century. He claimed that nobles were interested in the simple benefices of the chapter because these benefices meant short working time and considerable political power, which aristocrats could reinvest in the grandeur of the family. Vice versa, processes of social distinction were more complex and aleatory when political and economic antagonism to the bishop found space inside the chapter. In this scenario, episcopal nepotism became an ineffective weapon, and it could get excessively risky to invest in such a social strategy, as the cases of Asti, partially Gubbio, and Lucca show.52 Some final and general remarks can be provided. On the level of the internal social dynamic of the pontifical Curia, I am convinced that nepotism was a key means of promoting papal supremacy over the organization of the Western local church and to meet the requirements of papal government.53 This propagation of power clearly showed the limits of papal agency in the period. The pope could control a political system which was constantly growing in complexity, and he could carry out the task with substantial use of clientelism and patronage. Beyond the problems of political organization, I believe that interpretations should be 51

Grant project ‘PRIN 2015’, ‘La signoria rurale nel xiv–xv secolo: per ripensare l’Italia tardomedievale’, PI Sandro Carocci, with co-investigators from five Italian universities (Turin, Milan, Pisa, Rome, and Naples). 52 On Lucca, see Osheim, An Italian Lordship, p. 47; cf. Poloni, ‘La mobilità sociale a Lucca nel Duecento’. 53 See also Carocci, ‘Nepotismi di curia e mobilità sociale fra xiii e xv secolo’.

bishops, nepotism, and social mobility

77

open even to a structuralist perspective. During the late Middle Ages, a positive idea of the family as a fundamental element to enable individual social agency was dominant. These factors, however, should be considered together with other possible subjective means, which are irreducible to general structural patterns and at the same time could push the ruling class to promote nepotism both at the centre of the papal Curia and in communal local contexts. Just as it happened in the Roman environment of the ‘great nepotism’, in the local urban churches of the fourteenth century an extraordinary synergy between laymen and clerics was underway, and nepotism is a useful way to gauge how this system worked. Nepotism can be thought of as a set of actions that influenced social change, and it allows analysis of a particular type of aristocratic mentality, dominated by common feelings of absolute identification, devotion, and personal dedication to kinship.54 I think that a deep comprehension of the role of ecclesiastical nepotism in communal Italy will require analytical investigation of the relationship between the dynamic characteristics of the family in the Italian urban context and the aspects of local churches.55

54

See also Carocci, ‘Nepotismi di curia e mobilità sociale fra xiii e xv secolo’. In this direction further research should start from Cammarosano, ‘Les Structures familiales dans les villes de l’Italie communale’ and the recent contribution Varanini, ‘Strategie familiari per la carriera ecclesiastica’. 55

78

Stefano G. Magni

Works Cited Primary Sources Bonichi, Bindo, Rime (Bologna: Romagnoli, 1867) ‘Chronicon Parmense ab anno MXXXVIII usque ad annum MCCCXXXVIII’, ed. by Giuliano Bonazzi, Rerum italicarum scriptores, vol. ix.9 (Città di Castello: Lapi, 1902) Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, sive Summorum pontificium, ed. by Konrad Eubel, vol. i (Munster: Typis Librariae Regensbergianae, 1913)

Secondary Sources Alberzoni, Maria Pia, ‘Le armi del legato: Gregorio da Montelongo nello scontro tra Papato e Impero’, in La propaganda politica nel basso medioevo: atti del XXXVIII Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 14–17 ottobre 2001 (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2002), pp. 177–237 —— , ‘La chiesa cittadina, i monasteri e gli ordini mendicanti’, in Storia di Parma, vol. iii.1: Parma medievale: Poteri e istituzioni, ed. by Roberto Greci (Parma: Monte Università Parma Editore, 2010), pp. 303–12 —— , ‘Gregorio da Montelongo’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 59 (2002), Barlucchi, Andrea, ‘Note sulla signoria aretina del vescovo Guido Tarlati (1321–1327)’, in Le signorie cittadine in Toscana: esperienze di potere e forme di governo personale (secoli xiii–xv), ed. by Andrea Zorzi (Rome: Viella, 2013), pp. 169–83 Bizzocchi, Roberto, Chiesa e potere nella Toscana del Quattrocento (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1987) —— ,  ‘Clero e chiesa nella società italiana alla fine del Medioevo’, in Clero e società nell’Italia moderna (Rome: Laterza, 1992), pp. 3–44 Bonucci, Bruno, ‘Malavolti, Azzolino’, Dizionario Biografico degli italiani, 68 (2007),

—— , ‘Malavolti, Donosdeo’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 68 (2007), —— , ‘Malavolti, Rinaldo’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 68 (2007), Bordone, Renato, ‘Dalle origini comunali alla costruzione dei patriziati’, in Le aristocrazie dai signori rurali al patriziato, ed.  by Renato Bordone (Rome: Laterza, 2004), pp. 37–120 —— , ‘Malabaila, Baldracco’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 67 (2006), —— , ‘Malabaila, Giacomo’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 67 (2006),

bishops, nepotism, and social mobility

79

Bowsky, William, Un comune italiano nel Medioevo: Siena sotto il regime dei Nove (1287–1355) (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1986) Brentano, Robert, Two Churches: England and Italy in the Thirteenth Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968) —— , ‘Vescovi e collocazione socio-culturale del clero parrocchiale’, in Pievi e parrocchie in Italia nel Basso Medioevo (sec. xiii–xv): atti del VI Convegno di storia della Chiesa in Italia (Firenze 21–25 sett. 1981), 2 vols (Rome: Herder, 1984), i, 235–56 Cammarosano, Paolo, ‘Il comune di Siena dalla solidarietà imperiale al guelfismo: celebrazione e propaganda’, in Le forme della propaganda politica nel Due e Trecento (Rome: École française de Rome, 1994), pp. 455–67 —— ,  Italia medievale: Struttura e geografia delle fonti scritte (Rome: La Nuova Italia Scientifica, 1991) —— , ‘Les Structures familiales dans les villes de l’Italie communale (xiie–xive siècles)’, in Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiévale, ed. by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff (Rome: École française de Rome, 1977), pp. 181–94 —— ,  Tradizione documentaria e storia cittadina: introduzione al ‘Caleffo Vecchio’ del Comune di Siena (Siena: Accademia senese degli Intronati, 1988) Canobbio, Elisabetta, ‘Tra episcopio e cattedrale: successo individuale, affermazione famigliare e istituzioni ecclesiastiche a Como (sec. xiv–prima metà sec. xv)’, in La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano, vol. ii: Stato e istituzioni (secoli xiv–xv), ed. by Andrea Gamberini (Rome: Viella, 2017), pp. 257–81 Carbonetti Vendittelli, Cristina, and Marco Vendittelli, eds, La mobilità sociale nel medioevo italiano, vol. v: Roma e la chiesa (secoli xii–xv) (Rome: Viella, 2017) Carocci, Sandro, Baroni di Roma: Dominazioni signorili e lignaggi aristocratici nel Duecento e nel primo Trecento (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medioevo, 1993) —— , ‘Italian Church and Social Mobility (1200–1500)’, in Social Mobility in Medieval Italy (1100–1500), ed.  by Sandro Carocci and Isabella Lazzarini (Rome: Viella, 2018), pp. 121–38 —— , ed., La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo (Rome: École française de Rome, 2010) —— , ‘Nepotismi di curia e mobilità sociale fra xiii e xv secolo’, in La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano, vol. iii: Il mondo ecclesiastico (secoli xii–xv), ed. by Sandro Carocci and Amedeo De Vincentiis (Rome: Viella, 2018), pp. 93–124 —— , Il nepotismo nel medioevo: Papi, cardinali e famiglie nobili (Rome: Viella, 1999) Carocci, Sandro, and Amedeo De Vincentiis, eds, La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano, vol. iii: Il mondo ecclesiastico (secoli xii–xv) (Rome: Viella, 2018) Castellani, Luisa, Gli uomini d’affari astigiani: Politica e denaro fra il Piemonte e l’Europa (1270–1312) (Turin: Paravia, 1998) Chiaudano, Mario, ‘Note sui mercanti astigiani: I Malabaila’, Bollettino storico­bibliografico subalpino, 41 (1939), 213–28 Chittolini, Giorgio, ‘L’età pretridentina: Alcuni orientamenti di ricerca’, in ‘Storia della Chiesa in Italia: Orientamenti e prospettive’, ed.  by Maurilio Guasco, special issue, Humanitas, 59 (2004), 951–62 —— , ‘The Papacy and the Italian States’, in The Italian Renaissance State, ed. by Andrea Gamberini and Isabella Lazzarini (Rome: Viella, 2014), pp. 467–89

80

Stefano G. Magni

Ciappelli, Giovanni, ‘Gabrielli, Cante’, Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 51 (1998),

Ciccaglioni, Giovanni, ‘Tra unificazione e pluralismo: alcune osservazioni sull’esperienza pastorale e di dominio politico di Guido Tarlati, vescovo e signore di Arezzo (1312–1327)’, Cristianesimo nella storia, 29 (2008), 345–75 Cipriani, Marianna, ‘Familia ideale e familia reale: il vescovo di Verona Ermolao Barbaro e i suoi uomini (1453–1471)’, Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia, 66 (2012), 389–429 Collavini, Simone Maria, ‘I poteri signorili degli Ubaldini nel contesto della signoria rurale toscana (1100–1250)’, in Tra Montacciano e Firenze: gli Ubaldini e la città, ed. by Alessandro Monti and Elisa Pruni (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2016), pp. 16–27 Dal pulpito alla cattedra: I  vescovi degli ordini mendicanti nel ’200 e nel primo ’300 (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2000) Dameron, George W., Episcopal Power and Florentine Society (1000–1320) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991) —— , Florence and its Church in the Age of Dante (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005) —— , ‘Società e devozione nella Firenze medievale: Il caso del capitolo della Cattedrale (1250–1340)’, Ricerche storiche, 27 (1997), 39–52 Davidsohn, Robert, Storia di Firenze, vol. iv (Florence: Sansoni, 1960) De Sandre Gasparini, Giuseppina, Antonio Rigon, Francesco  G. Trolese, and Gian Maria Varanini, eds, Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal xiv alla metà del xvi secolo: atti del VII Convegno di storia della Chiesa in Italia (Brescia, 21–25 settembre 1987), 2 vols (Rome: Herder, 1990) Diacciati, Silvia, Popolani e magnati: Società e politica nella Firenze del Duecento (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2011) Diaz Ibáñez, Jorge, ‘La formación de las élites eclesiásticas: Aportaciones de la historiografía castellana y portuguesa’, in La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo, ed.  by Sandro Carocci (Rome: École française de Rome, 2010), pp. 309–39 Emich, Birgit, ‘Dalla Chiesa tridentina al mito di Trento: Una rilettura storico-concettuale’, Storica, 63 (2015), 39–66 Franceschi, Franco, and Ilaria Taddei, Le città italiane nel Medioevo (xii–xiv secolo) (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2012) Franco, Bradley R., ‘Church and Family: The Tenure of Bishop Donosdeo Malavolti, 1317–1350’, in Honos alit artes: Studi per il settantesimo compleanno di Mario Ascheri, vol. ii: Gli universi particolari, ed. by Paola Maffei and Gian Maria Varanini (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2014), pp. 305–14 —— , ‘Episcopal Power and the Late Medieval State: Siena’s Bishops and the Government of the Nine’, Viator, 45 (2014), 255–70 Gamberini, Andrea, ed., La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano, vol. ii: Stato e istituzioni (secoli xiv–xv) (Rome: Viella, 2017) —— ,  ‘La nobiltà del pastore: Una nota sui processi di formalizzazione di status nel Trecento’, in Medioevo dei poteri: Studi in onore di Giorgio Chittolini, ed.  by Nadia Covini, Massimo Della Misericordia, Andrea Gamberini, and Francesco Somaini (Rome: Viella, 2012), pp. 77–96

bishops, nepotism, and social mobility

81

Gentile, Marco, ‘La formazione del dominio dei Rossi tra xiv e xv secolo’, in Le signorie dei Rossi di Parma tra xiv e xvi secolo, ed.  by Laura Arcangeli and Marco Gentile (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2007), pp. 23–56 —— , ‘Giustizia, protezione, amicizia: note sul dominio dei Rossi nel Parmense all’inizio del Quattrocento’, Reti Medievali Rivista, 5  (2004), —— , Terra e poteri: Parma e il Parmense nel ducato visconteo all’inizio del Quattrocento (Milan: Unicopli, 2001) Greci, Roberto, Parma medievale: Economia e società nel Parmense dal Tre al Quattrocento (Parma: Battei, 1992) Guasco, Maurilio, ed., ‘Storia della Chiesa in Italia: Orientamenti e prospettive’, special issue, Humanitas, 59 (2004), 893–993 Kohl, Benjamin G., ‘Conti, Ildebrandino’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 28 (1983),

Luongo, Alberto, Gubbio nel Trecento: Il comune popolare e la mutazione signorile (1300–1404) (Rome: Viella, 2016) Luzzati, Michele, ‘Simone Saltarelli arcivescovo di Pisa (1323–1342) e gli affreschi del maestro del Trionfo della Morte’, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa: Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, 18 (1988), 1645–64 Maire Vigueur, Jean Claude, Cavaliers et citoyens: Guerre, conflits et société dans l’Italie communale, xiie–xiiie siècles (Paris: École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2003) —— , ‘Religione e politica nella propaganda pontificia (Italia comunale, prima metà del xiii secolo)’, in Le forme della propaganda politica nel Due e Trecento (Rome: École française de Rome, 1994), pp. 65–83 Menant, François, L’Italie des communes (1100–1350) (Paris: Belin, 2005) Merli, Sonia, and Sandro Tiberino, Il castello eugubino di Carbonana e i suoi signori (secoli xii–xviii) (Perugia: Deputazione di Storia Patria per l’Umbria, 2015) Milani, Giuliano, ‘Uno snodo nella storia dell’esclusione: Urbano IV, la crociata contro Manfredi e l’avvio di nuove disuguaglianze nell’Italia bassomedievale’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Moyen­Age, 125.2 (2013), Mucciarelli, Roberta, ‘Il traghettamento dei mercatores: dal fronte imperiale alla pars ecclesiae’, in Fedeltà ghibellina, affari guelfi: Saggi e riletture intorno alla storia di Siena fra Due e Trecento, ed. by Gabriella Piccinni (Pisa: Pacini, 2008), pp. 61–102 Nardi, Paolo, ‘I vescovi di Siena e la curia pontificia dall’ascesa della parte guelfa allo scoppio dello scisma d’Occidente (1267–1378)’, in Chiesa e vita religiosa a Siena: Dalle origini al grande giubileo, ed. by Achille Mirizio and Paolo Nardi (Siena: Cantagalli, 2002), pp. 153–78 Negro, Flavia, ‘I signori vescovi: note sul senso di una categoria’, in Signorie cittadine nell’Italia comunale, ed. by Jean-Claude Maire Vigueur (Rome: Viella, 2013), pp. 263–301 Olivieri, Antonio, ‘I registri vescovili nel Piemonte medievale’, in I registri vescovili dell’Italia settentrionale (secoli xii–xv), ed.  by Attilio Bartoli Langeli and Antonio Rigon (Rome: Herder, 2003), pp. 1–42 Osheim, Duane J., An Italian Lordship: The Bishopric of Lucca in the Late Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977)

82

Stefano G. Magni

Paolini, Lorenzo, ‘Storia della Chiesa di Bologna medievale: un “cantiere” storiografico aperto’, in Codice diplomatico della Chiesa bolognese: Documenti autentici, interpolati falsi (iv–xii sec.), ed.  by Mario Fanti and Lorenzo Paolini (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo, 2004), pp. liii–cvi Pellegrini, Michele, Chiesa e città: Uomini, comunità e istituzioni nella società senese del xii e xiii secolo (Rome: Herder, 2004) —— ,  Vescovo e città: Una relazione nel Medioevo italiano (secoli ii–xiv) (Milan: Bruno Mondadori, 2009) Petti Balbi, Giovanna, Governare la città: Pratiche sociali e linguaggi politici a Genova in età medievale (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2007) Pia, Ezio Claudio, La giustizia del vescovo: Società, economia e Chiesa cittadina ad Asti tra xiii e xiv secolo (Rome: Viella, 2014) Pievi e parrocchie in Italia nel Basso Medioevo (sec. xiii–xv): atti del VI Convegno di storia della Chiesa in Italia (Firenze 21–25 sett. 1981), 2 vols (Rome: Herder, 1984) Poloni, Alma, ‘La mobilità sociale a Lucca nel Duecento: Qualche riflessione sul ruolo delle istituzioni religiose’, in Il patrimonio documentario della chiesa di Lucca: Prospettive di ricerca, ed. by Sergio Pagano and Pierantonio Piatti (Florence: SISMEL-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2010), pp. 145–55 Prosperi, Adriano, ‘Dominus beneficiorum: Il conferimento dei benefici ecclesiastici fra prassi curiale e ragioni politiche negli stati italiani tra ’400 e ’500’, in Strutture ecclesiastiche in Italia e in Germania prima della Riforma (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1984), pp. 51–86 Ragni, Eugenio, ‘Bonichi Bindo’, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 12 (1971), Raveggi, Sergio, Massimo Tarassi, Daniela Medici, and Patrizia Parenti, Ghibellini, guelfi e popolo grasso: I detentori del potere politico a Firenze nella seconda metà del Dugento (Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1978) Reinhard, Wolfgang, ‘Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Verbindung von Kirchen mit Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte’, Spezialforschung und ‘Gesamtgeschichte’: Weiner Beiträge zur Geschichte der Neuzeit, 8 (1981), 243–78 —— ,  ‘Nepotismus: Der Funktionswandel einer pastgeschichtlichen Konstanten’, Zeit­ schrift für Kirchengeschichte, 86 (1975), 145–85 Renouard, Yves, Les Relations des Papes d’Avignon et des Compagnies commerciales et bancaires de 1316 à 1378 (Paris: Boccard, 1941) Rigon, Antonio, and Francesco Veronese, eds, L’età dei processi: Inchieste e condanne tra politica e ideologia nel ’300 (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il medioevo, 2009) Ronzani, Mauro, ‘“Figli del commune” o fuoriusciti? Gli arcivescovi di Pisa di fronte alla città-stato tra la fine del Duecento e il 1406’, in Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal xiv alla metà del xvi secolo: atti del VII Convegno di storia della Chiesa in Italia (Brescia, 21–25 settembre 1987), ed. by Giuseppina de Sandre Gasparini, Antonio Rigon, Francesco G. Trolese, and Gian Maria Varanini, 2 vols (Rome: Herder, 1990), ii, 773–835 —— ,  ‘Note e osservazioni sui vescovi mendicanti in Italia centrale fino alla metà del secolo xiv’, in Dal pulpito alla cattedra: I vescovi degli ordini mendicanti nel ’200 e nel primo ’300 (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2000), pp. 133–65

bishops, nepotism, and social mobility

83

—— , ‘Vescovi, capitoli e strategie famigliari nell’Italia comunale’, in Storia d’Italia. Annali, vol. ix: La Chiesa e il potere politico dal Medioevo all’età contemporanea, ed. by Giorgio Chittolini and Giovanni Miccoli (Turin: Einaudi, 1986), pp. 99–146 Rossi, Maria Clara, Gli uomini del vescovo: Familiae vescovili a Verona (1259–1350) (Venice: Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Venezie, 2001) —— , ‘Vescovi nel basso medioevo (1274–1378): Problemi, studi, prospettive’, in Il difficile mestiere di vescovo (secoli x–xiv) (Verona: Cierre, 2000), pp. 217–54 Sambin, Paolo, ‘La familia di un vescovo italiano del ’300’, Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia, 4 (1950), 237–47 Scharf, Gian Paolo G., Potere e società ad Arezzo nel xiii secolo (1214–1312) (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2013) Sergi, Giuseppe, ‘Poteri temporali del vescovo: il problema storiografico’, in Vescovo e città nell’alto medioevo: quadri generali e realtà toscane (Pistoia: Centro italiano di studi di storia e d’arte, 2001), pp. 1–16 Tanzini, Lorenzo, ‘Il vescovo e la città: Interessi e conflitti di potere dall’età di Dante a Sant’Antonino’, Annali di storia di Firenze, 8 (2013), 81–111 Tanzini, Lorenzo, and Sergio Tognetti, eds, La mobilità sociale nel medioevo italiano: competenze, conoscenze e saperi tra professioni e ruoli sociali (secc. xii–xv) (Rome: Viella, 2016) Théry, Julien, ‘Faide nobiliaire et justice inquisitoire de la papauté à Sienne au temps des Neuf: Les Recollectiones d’une enquête de Benoît  XII contre l’évêque Donosdeo de Malavolti (ASV, Collectoriae 61A et 404A)’, in Als die Welt in die Akten kam: Prozeßschriftgut im europäischen Mittelalter, ed.  by Susanne Lepsius and Thomas Wetzstein (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2008), pp. 275–348 Tilatti, Andrea, ‘Legati del papa e propaganda nel Duecento’, in La propaganda politica nel basso medioevo: atti del XXXVIII Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 14–17 ottobre 2001 (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2002), pp. 145–76 Varanini, Gian Maria, ‘Maggi, Berardo’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 67 (2006),

—— ,  ‘Maggi, Emanuele’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 67 (2006), —— ,  ‘Maggi, Federico’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 67 (2006), —— ,  ‘Maggi, Maffeo’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 67 (2006), —— , ‘La ricerca storica sulle chiese locali in Italia fra tradizione erudita e ecclesiologia conciliare. Alcune considerazioni’, in ‘Storia della Chiesa in Italia: Orientamenti e prospettive’, ed. by Maurilio Guasco, special issue, Humanitas, 59 (2004), 972–82 —— , ‘Strategie familiari per la carriera ecclesiastica (Italia, sec. xiii–xv)’, in La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano, vol.  iii: Il mondo ecclesiastico (secoli xii–xv), ed. by Sandro Carocci and Amedeo De Vincentiis (Rome: Viella, 2018), pp. 361–98 Zorzi, Andrea, La trasformazione di un quadro politico: Ricerche su politica e giustizia a Firenze dal comune allo Stato territoriale (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2008)

The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510: From Chapter’s Men to King’s Men Christine Barralis

T

his essay will focus on the see of Meaux, the closest episcopal see to Paris. Located in the ecclesiastical province of Sens, it was a small bishopric with temporal estates which were not wealthy.1 This did not allow the bishop to be a significant player on the political scene of the French kingdom. But the geographical location of the see of Meaux in the beginning of the thirteenth century, on the border between the county of Champagne in the east and the royal estates in the west, could allow the bishops to have some autonomy from the princes. Thus it was an ‘average’ bishopric in terms of its wealth,2 and small as regards its territory and population,3 with some assets, including its proximity to the growing capital of the realm, but not enough profits to attract many powerful people. Indeed, pastoral care was not the only task of the bishop. His responsibilities involved both the management of his church and a role as an advisor to the prince. But the bishops of Meaux did not perform both these tasks 1 For a larger presentation of the diocese and its bishops, see Barralis, ‘Gouverner l’Église à la fin du Moyen Âge’. This essay is an updated extract of Chapter 2 of this thesis. 2 The apostolic tax of the diocese was valued at two thousand florins from at least the late thirteenth century (Gaudemet, Le Gouvernement de l’Église à l’époque classique, p. 70, n. 104, and Hoberg, Taxæ pro communibus servitiis). 3 The diocese consists of about 220 parishes, which is small for the dioceses of northern France. In comparison, in the late Middle Ages, the diocese of Rouen had about 1400 parishes, Amiens 780, Sens more than 700, Reims 465, and Angers 440.

Christine Barralis ([email protected]) is Maître de conférences en histoire du Moyen Âge, Université de Lorraine. Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 85–103 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120613 BREPOLS

Christine Barralis

86

at the same level throughout the late Middle Ages. So the question is to what extent the one or the other aspect is favoured according to the moment, and why it is so. To determine what were the key aspects, both ecclesiastical and political, of their episcopal offices, I  will first study the origins, training, and careers of these prelates and then examine the way they were appointed.

Sociology of the Bishops Between the end of the twelfth century (1197) and the pre-Reformation era of Guillaume Briçonnet and his master (1510), thirty-two bishops occupied the see of Meaux.4 We know the rough geographical origins of approximately two thirds of these prelates.5 It was in the thirteenth century that men of local origin were most common: among the bishops whose geographical origins we know for this period, the one who was born farthest from the diocese was a native of the Vexin!6 After the thirteenth century, the situation was more complex, but amongst these prelates there were few foreigners: the majority hailed from locations in a 200 km area around Meaux, and almost all of them came through Paris at one moment or other during their careers. The geographical closeness of the two cities was an obvious attraction for some of the candidates for the see who were keen to be able to continue their activities in the capital having obtained the mitre. The fact remains that a lot of them had no personal connection to the diocese before their episcopal appointment. We can identify the social origin of about two thirds of the holders of the see of Meaux.7 The nobility dominated with sixteen representatives. Only four belonged to families which we can consider to be relatively powerful at the time of their entry into the episcopate, although it was recently acquired influence, 4

I exclude the two appointed clerics who did not become bishops: Geoffroi Bouteiller, provost of Normandy in the cathedral chapter of Chartres, was promoted by Pope Boniface VIII in 1298 but died before he could accept his appointment (Les Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. by Digard and others, ii, n° 2748); Étienne de Mornay, Dean of Saint-Martin of Tours, appointed by Pope John XXII on 28 October 1325, refused the promotion (Città della Vaticano, ASV, Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 303). In both cases, the pope extended his right of provision to another person. This was therefore counted as one (and not two) pontifical intervention in the following counts. 5 Three of them were certainly born in the diocese itself and four others probably were too. Six were from nearby localities (Paris, Nemours, etc.), ten others came from dioceses of northern France (Amiens, Rouen, Beauvais, Sens, Châlons), and only three were from much more distant areas (Bas-Berry, Bourbonnais, Quercy). 6 The area just on the other side of Paris. 7 Twenty-two of thirty-two.

The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510

87

primarily through the skills of their relatives. Four others, who lived in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, came from the old and prestigious military nobility, which could offer them a lot of opportunities. Globally, the bishops of Meaux thus belonged to the families of minor nobility or wealthy bourgeoisie, and their promotion to the episcopate appears to be less the result of their family backgrounds than as that of the exercise of their skills. Moreover, even for the representatives of the highest nobility, birth was not the only criterion of promotion to the episcopate: royal service also played its part. Twenty-nine of these thirty-two bishops were secular clergy. Over time, they tended to accumulate more and more benefices in various dioceses before their promotion: while in the thirteenth century, they generally held only a single benefice before their appointment to the bishopric, the average number of benefices held by the bishops of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries before their appointment is more than four. The most common benefices in their preepiscopal careers are the dignities of cathedral chapters: only six prelates did not hold any cathedral dignities.8 Another evolution between the thirteenth and the fifteenth century deserves to be underlined: the reduction in the number of bishops of Meaux having previously belonged to the local chapter. Almost three quarters of the bishops came from the Meaux chapter in the thirteenth century, against a little more than half in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Only half of those whose level of ordination is known were priests at the time of their episcopal promotion. That means that the majority of bishops had limited pastoral experience. So possession of sacred orders does not seem to have been essential for their promotion to the episcopate, whereas university degrees were an important element in the training of future prelates. Twenty-one of the thirty-two bishops had studied at university, and at least twenty of them achieved degrees.9 Most of these academics lived in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: among the twenty-two bishops of these centuries, only two did not apparently undertake extensive studies.10 On the other hand, eight of the eleven bishops from the 8

Anseau (c.  1197–1207), who was Dean of Saint-Martin of Tours; Jean de Garlande (1269–74? we know almost nothing about him); Durand de Saint-Pourçain (1326–34), who held the chair of theology at the papal Curia and was a papal chaplain before his promotion to the episcopate; Pierre Fresnel (1390–1409), who was canon of Rouen, member of the Parliament of Paris, and request master in the king’s household; Pierre de Versailles (1439–46) and Jean Le Meunier (1447–58), who were Benedictine abbots. 9 There are maybe twenty-two, if we follow Vincent Tabbagh, who thinks that Jean de Minterole (1298–1305) got the title of master at university (Tabbagh, Les Évêques dans le royaume de France, p. 96 n. 4). 10 Jean de Meulan (1334–50), born in a family of the old Norman nobility, and Jean Le

88

Christine Barralis

thirteenth century — more than two thirds of them — did not.11 This situation is understandable, on the one hand, by the gradual development of universities, which welcomed more students, and, on the other hand, by the recruitment of the bishops in the thirteenth century: a major part of them arose exclusively from the chapter of Meaux and doubtless came from local families. Two of the three academics of this first period belonged moreover to the small group of bishops who were not canons of Meaux before their promotion. Thus we observe a gradual increase of the level of training of the prelates between 1300 and 1500, with a clear evolution between the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries. At the end of the fifteenth century, the absence of degrees became the exception, even if it does not prevent the promotion to the episcopate, if you had some other assets: Jean Le Meunier (1447–58) compensated for his lack of university education through royal patronage which was the key factor in his promotion.12 In the fifteenth century, the noble clerics no longer scorned the acquisition of academic knowledge, which they now believed to be necessary for the pursuit of a good career.13 Most of the bishops of Meaux who had studied at university opted for legal training: thirteen of them were jurists, against only five theologians and two ‘simple’ masters of arts.14 In spite of this predominance of Meunier (1447–58), a Benedictine abbot. We are not sure that two others achieved degrees. 11 Only Anseau (c.  1197–1207), Geoffroi de Tressi (c.  1207–13), and Jean de Poinci (1268–69) had surely undertaken intensive studies. 12 After the death of Bishop Pierre de Versailles on 11 November 1446, the king wrote both to the cathedral chapter, to recommend his counsellor Jean Le Meunier (Abbot of Saint-Maurdes-Fossés near Paris), and to the pope, to ask him to confirm his election once it was complete (d’Achery, Spicilegium, pp. 772–73). But the chapter was divided during the election (2 January 1447): Jean Le Meunier received fewer votes than the dean Jean Aguenin, who was a supporter of the Duke of Burgundy, and so not in favour of the king (Auxerre, AD Yonne, G33, n° 37). Le Meunier was said to have been elected, probably because the king’s envoy had said to the electors that Le Meunier would become bishop, whatever they did (Paris, ANF, X/1a/4801, fol. 301). The king then bid the Archbishop of Sens to submit the confirmation of Le Meunier to the pope if he thought he could not confirm him (Paris, ANF, X/1a/4801, fol. 300v), and he wrote to the pope and the cardinal to ask them to confirm the ‘postulation’ of Le Meunier (BnF, MS lat. 5414A, fol. 98r). The archbishop sent the case to Rome after Aguenin’s and Le Meunier’s appeals (Auxerre, AD Yonne, G33, n° 37). On 15 May 1447, the pope provided Le Meunier to the bishopric of Meaux (Città della Vaticano, ASV, Reg. Lat. 435, fols 90v–91). Then, despite a trial in the Parliament of Paris instigated by Aguenin, of which the issue is unknown (Paris, ANF, X/1a/4801, fols 282v–283v, 300v–301v, 309r), the king delivered the temporalities of the bishopric to Le Meunier (BnF, MS NAL 7631, fol. 65r), who remained bishop until his death. 13 Verger, Les Gens de savoir en Europe à la fin du Moyen Âge, ch. 7. 14 We do not know the specialization of Guillaume de Nemours, ‘master’ in Paris at the

The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510

89

jurists, which tallies with the analysis of historians of education on the increasing importance of law graduates in medieval society, it is difficult to identify a clear pattern of subject choice by the future bishops of Meaux. Theologians and jurists alternated in the see until the end of the Middle Ages, and no strong preference for one subject was ever fully established. At most we can notice the succession of three royal jurists between 1361 and 1409, at a time of development of state structures.15 So, the cohort of the Meaux bishops was more educated than the average French bishop: with eighteen bishops of twenty-two having degrees in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries — that is, more than 80 per cent (and more than 90 per cent for the fourteenth century alone) — the see of Meaux is far above the average of the French episcopate; according to Vincent Tabbagh, 25 per cent of the French bishops had a degree in 1302, and a little more than 66 per cent in 1398.16 The possession of university education and intellectual skills obviously facilitated many careers, allowing men such as Jean de Boiry (1426–35) to reach the episcopate at the request of the University of Paris. Though in his case, he also had the support of the queen: at the same time as the university wrote to the pope, asking him to promote Jean de Boiry to the bishopric of Meaux, a canon of Meaux wrote to the chapter on behalf of the queen, the regent Bedford, and the royal council to ask them to elect Jean de Boiry.17 So, university degrees were not an essential prerequisite for the recruitment of bishops, even in the fifteenth century. It is interesting to underline that in the thirteenth century, no Bishop of Meaux belonged to the faithful of the Counts of Champagne, although a major part of the diocese lay in their territory. During this period, the prelates were more rivals than servants of these princes. It was only after the integration of the Champagne in the royal estates that a Bishop of Meaux, Simon Festu (1308–17), was bound to the heirs of Champagne (the queen Jeanne of Navarre, wife of Philip the Fair, and their elder son).18 beginning of the thirteenth century. One of the two bishops who were only masters in arts was Philippe de Vitry, one of the greatest musicians of the fourteenth century (Coville, ‘Philippe de Vitri’). 15 On the importance of law studies in the late Middle Ages, see Verger, Les Gens de savoir en Europe à la fin du Moyen Âge, pp. 125–33. 16 Tabbagh, Les Évêques dans le royaume de France, p. 95. 17 The University of Paris wrote in the beginning of the year 1426 to Pope Martin V: in this letter, Boiry was presented as a master in theology, in the university for thirty-six years, already a canon of Meaux, so reputed that he had instructed the royal children and was the director of conscience and confessor for the king’s mother, Queen Catherine of France (Denifle and Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, no. 2268). Letter to the chapter: Melun, AD Seine-et-Marne, G 40, p. 40. 18 Simon is first a cleric and familiarus of Queen Jeanne, and her executor, and became after

90

Christine Barralis

On the other hand, fifteen bishops of Meaux served the kings before their promotion, so a little less than half of them. But we need to be careful not to misunderstand this number. Except Pierre de Versailles (1439–46), who was first loyal to the pope, when these bishops did not serve the king directly in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, they instead served either the heir to the throne or the fleur-de-lis princes competing for the government of the kingdom at the time of Charles VI. If sometimes the interests of these princes conflicted with the rule of the king himself, we cannot say that our clerics were not primarily royal servants. Moreover, except Pierre de Versailles, the bishops of Meaux systematically supported their king in the disputes with the pope. Our bishops are a little more numerous serving kings before than during their episcopate. This situation is partially due to their age at the time of their appointment. Indeed, for the majority of them, the bishopric of Meaux was the end of their careers: only seven of the thirty-two prelates continued their ecclesiastical career in another place (Table 4.1). These transfers began in the fourteenth century: no bishop was translated somewhere else between 1197 and 1317, which is not an unusual situation in the thirteenth century’s dioceses.19 The bishops who pursue their careers elsewhere were not young, however, when they arrived in Meaux: Guillaume de Brosse (1318–21) was about forty-five years old, Pierre de Jean (1321–25) and Jean de Meulan (1334–50) were about sixty, and Tristan de Salazar (1473–74) was around forty. Twenty-two of the other prelates began and finished their episcopal reigns in Meaux. Overall, these men are thus rather old upon their promotion, as shown by the relatively short duration of their episcopates (a little less than nine years on average): many of them died after just a few years in office. Their age explains that they were more numerous serving the king before than during their episcopate: the episcopal see was a well-deserved retreat after a life of labour in the service of the prince, the pope, or the cathedral chapter. The episcopate seems to have been for many of them the climax of their career and marked a transformation of their activities in the service of the king, linked to their new dignity and thus the normal evolution of their career, and taking into account their experience. So it is logical that they were present more frequently at the royal council after their promotion than before: the episcopal dignity opened doors for them that their skills had not always allowed them to pass. On the other hand, they were less present within the royal household. her death a servant of her son, Louis of Champagne (later King Louis X): Rigault, Le Procès de Guichard évêque de Troyes, p. 23. 19 In England too, the translations were ‘extremely rare’ in the thirteenth century (Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 182–83).

The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510

91

Table 4.1. Translations to and from the see of Meaux  

Translation to Meaux

Translation from Meaux

Anseau or Anselme (c. 1197–1207)

 

 

Geoffroi de Tressi (c. 1207–13)

 

 

Guillaume de Nemours (1214–21)

 

 

Amaury (1221–22)

 

 

Pierre de Cuisy (1223–55)

 

 

Aleaume de Cuisy (1255–67)

 

 

Jean de Poinci (1268–69)

 

 

Jean de Garlande (1269–74?)

 

 

Jean de la Grange (1275–c. 1287)

 

 

Adam de Vaudoi (1288–98)

 

 

Jean de Montrolles (1298–1305)

 

 

Nicolas Volé (1305–08)

 

 

Simon Festu (1308–17)

 

 

Guillaume de Brosse (1318–21)

X (Le Puy)

X (Bourges – Sens)

Pierre de Jean (1321–25)

 

X (Viviers – Bayeux – Carcassonne)

Durand de Saint-Pourçain (1326–34)

X (Le Puy)

 

Jean de Meulan (1334–50)

 

X (Noyon – Paris)

Philippe de Vitry (1351–61)

 

 

Jean Royer (1361–78)

 

 

Guillaume de Dormans (1379–90)

 

X (Sens)

Pierre Fresnel (1390–1409)

 

X (Noyon – Lisieux)

Jean de Sains (1409–18)

X (Gap)

 

Robert de Girême (1418–26)

 

 

Jean de Boiry (1426–35)

 

 

Pasquier de Vaux (1435–39)

 

X (Evreux – Lisieux)

Pierre de Versailles (1439–46)

X (Châlons-en-Champagne, a few weeks)

 

Jean Le Meunier (1447–58)

 

 

Jean du Drac (1459–73)

 

 

Tristan de Salazar (1473–74)

 

X (Sens)

Louis de Melun (1474–83)

 

 

Jean L’Huillier (1483–1500)

 

 

Jean de Pierrepont (1500–1510)

 

 

Christine Barralis

92

Additionally, they were more frequently absent on diplomatic missions before their promotion than afterwards: this kind of activity decreases probably because of their age and declining physical health. Ten of them were also present in the royal administration, in particular in the Parliament and Taxation Court. When it comes to royal service, it is necessary to underline the very clear split between the thirteenth century, when a single bishop (from eleven) served the king, and the last two centuries of the Middle Ages, when the majority of the holders of the see had undertaken royal duties. This evolution was the result of several factors. The first of them, already noted, is the integration of the Champagne into the royal estates, as a consequence of the marriage of Philip the Fair (1285–1314) and the county’s heiress, Jeanne of Navarre. This led the king to pay closer attention to regional matters. Secondly, at the same time, Philip the Fair endeavoured to control more firmly the bishops of the French kingdom, to have them supporting the growing royal authority in the face of papal authority.20 The third factor, which is connected to the first two, was the change in the recruitment patterns of the bishops. This was not specific to the see of Meaux, but it was very advanced in this diocese and it finally reinforced the actions of the king. Let us explain this point.

The Changes in the Appointment of the Bishops We do not know how three of the thirty-two bishops of Meaux between 1297 and 1510 were appointed, but we can suspect the existence of royal pressure in one of these cases (Guillaume de Nemours, 1214–21, who belonged to a family of royal servants).21 During the other twenty-nine vacancies, sixteen elections are known (Table 4.2). Two additional elections are almost certain, although they are not attested (in 1221 and 1223).22 The election, which is in theory the regular 20

On the ecclesiastical politics of Philip the Fair, see Digard, Philippe le Bel et le Saint­Siège; Favier, Philippe le Bel; Théry, ‘The Pioneer of Royal Theocracy’. 21 He was the son of Gautier de Villebéon († 1205), lord of Nemours and chamberlain of the kings Louis VII and Philip August. Two brothers of Guillaume hold royal bishoprics (Étienne, Bishop of Noyon, 1188–1221, and Pierre, Bishop of Paris, 1208–13), and three other brothers were servants and chamberlains of the king (Barralis, ‘Gouverner l’Église à la fin du Moyen Âge’, iii, 545–46). 22 Amaury (1221–22) and Pierre de Cuisy (1223–55) were probably elected, because they were known before their promotion only as members of the cathedral clergy of Meaux. We have very little information about Amaury who, in a charter, gave thanks to the Church of Meaux for having fed him for many years before he became bishop (Meaux, Méd. Mun., MS 63, p. 22). Pierre de Cuisy belonged to a small noble family of the diocese and was Archdeacon of

The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510

93

means of appointment of the bishops, thus intervenes in reality only in a little more than half of the episcopal vacancies. Table 4.2. Appointments of the Bishops of Meaux (shading indicates that we have no definite information about their appointment to the bishopric) election by the chapter

papal provision

X

 

X (first election broken by the pope)

 

 

 

Amaury (1221–22)

probably

 

Pierre de Cuisy (1223–55)

probably

 

Aleaume de Cuisy (1255–67)

X

 

Jean de Poinci (1268–69)

X

 

Jean de Garlande (1269–74?)

X

 

Jean de la Grange (1275–c. 1287)

X

 

Adam de Vaudoi (1288–98)

X

X

  Anseau or Anselme (c. 1197–1207) Geoffroi de Tressi (c. 1207–13) Guillaume de Nemours (1214–21)

disputed = >

X

Nicolas Volé (1305–08)

Jean de Montrolles (1298–1305)

X

 

Simon Festu (1308–17)

X

 

Guillaume de Brosse (1318–21)

 

X

Pierre de Jean (1321–25)

 

X

Durand de Saint-Pourçain (1326–34)

 

X

Jean de Meulan (1334–50)

 

X

Philippe de Vitry (1351–61)

 

X

Jean Royer (1361–78)

 

X

Guillaume de Dormans (1379–90)

X

X

Pierre Fresnel (1390–1409)

 

X

Jean de Sains (1409–18)

 

X

Robert de Girême (1418–26)

X

X

Meaux before his promotion. Three of his brothers achieved ecclesiastical careers in the diocese: Aleaume was cantor in the cathedral and succeeded him as bishop (he was elected), Thomas was Abbot of Saint-Faron of Meaux (one the of biggest and oldest Benedictine monasteries of the diocese), and Milo was abbot of the Prémontré monastery of Chambrefontaine (situated in the family’s parish of Cuisy). We have no record for Pierre of university training nor career in the service of the king or a prince, whether lay or church, before his episcopate (Barralis, ‘Gouverner l’Église à la fin du Moyen Âge’, iii, 547–48).

Christine Barralis

94

Table 4.2 Contd.   Jean de Boiry (1426–35) Pasquier de Vaux (1435–39) Pierre de Versailles (1439–46) Jean Le Meunier (1447–58) Jean du Drac (1459–73)

election by the chapter

papal provision

 

X

X disputed

X

 

X

X disputed

X

X

X

Tristan de Salazar (1473–74)

 

X

Louis de Melun (1474–83)

 

X

Jean L’Huillier (1483–1500)

X

X

Jean de Pierrepont (1500–1510)

 

X

The phenomenon is not evenly distributed over the entire period: most of the recorded elections indeed took place in the first part of our period, until 1308. The thirteenth century thus appears as a golden age of the chapter’s freedom: even in the cases of disagreement between the canons, papal intervention was limited most of the time to ordering a new election if the first one could not be reconciled.23 The only papal appointment attested for this period was in 1298: the votes having been divided between the dean and a canon, they both resigned in front of Pope Boniface VIII, who then appointed a new bishop on his own authority.24 This dominance of elections is also observed in the rest of the kingdom: the see of Meaux is rather representative of the national average in the thirteenth century.25 It does not necessarily mean that the canons of the cathedral chose their minister in total independence. The issue of possible royal pressures on the voters deserves to be mentioned.26 We have very little written 23

It happened in 1207 (Die Register Innocenz’ III., dir. by Hageneder and Haidacher, n° 163, pp. 272–73: the pope dissolved the first election, owing to the divisions of the chapter, and commissioned two delegates to organize a new election) and in 1275 (Les Registres de Grégoire X, ed. by Guiraud, n° 592: the pope commissioned two delegates to examine the contested election and confirm the elected or organize a new election; they finally confirmed the first election: Paris, ANF, J/198A, n° 126). 24 Les Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. by Digard and others, ii, n° 2748. 25 Gaudemet, Le Gouvernement de l’Église à l’époque classique, p. 66. The situation is similar in England: Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, part I. 26 It has been highlighted for the whole kingdom: Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, p. 194; Baldwin, Philippe Auguste et son Gouvernement, pp. 234–42; Barralis, ‘Le Choix des évêques dans le royaume de France’.

The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510

95

evidence of royal pressure, but the simple fact that the king owned the regalia of the bishopric meant he held influence on the choice of the elected,27 because to choose a candidate not acceptable to the king could entail great difficulties in the management of the temporalities of the see, if the king refused their restoration to the bishop elect.28 In fact, in the thirteenth century few bishops came from the service of the king or from his entourage: only four of the fourteen elected, and one of the two appointed by the pope. These bishops connected to the Capetian administration lived only at the beginning and at the end of the period: between 1221 and 1298, no prelate belonged to this group. A first moment of royal influence is so situated under Philip Augustus’s reign, nevertheless considered overall as a period of freedom of the elections, although this must be a little nuanced.29 Two of his faithfuls took possession of the see of Meaux: master Anselme (or Anseau), Dean of Saint-Martin of Tours in 1197, and Guillaume de Nemours in 1214.30 Royal influence was again exerted under the reign of Philip the Fair, with the successive promotions to the see of Meaux of three clerics stemming from the royal administration or entourage: Jean de Montrolles (appointed by the pope 27 In Meaux, the temporal regalia was, in the thirteenth century, in the hands of the Count of Champagne, who held it in fief from the king, who was the only one who could initiate the process of the election and the restoration of the temporalities to the new prelate. This fact is mentioned by Fulbert of Chartres in the beginning of the eleventh century (Bur, La Formation du comté de Champagne, pp. 185–88) and is sustained by some charters of the thirteenth century (for example: BnF, MS lat. 5993A, fol. 190r, 13 November 1223; Paris, ANF, J/344, n° 25, 13 October 1267, and n°  33, 30  October 1269; Paris, ANF, J/198A, n°  126, 19  June 1275). The king nevertheless held the spiritual regalia (Paris, ANF, X/1a/2, fol. 42v, November 1278 – January 1279). From the end of the thirteenth century, after the marriage between King Philip the Fair and the Countess of Champagne, the temporal regalia was directly managed by the royal officers (Inventaire d’anciens comptes royaux, ed. by Langlois, pp. 51–52). 28 Roland, Les Chanoines et les élections épiscopales, pp. 173–76. 29 Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 193–94. 30

About master Anselme, see Baldwin, Philippe Auguste et son Gouvernement, pp. 163–64. Guillaume de Nemours was the son of Gautier ‘the Chamberlain’, a faithful servant of Kings Louis VII and Philip Augustus. Two of his brothers were king’s chamberlains and two others were bishops of Noyon and Paris (Baldwin, Philippe Auguste et son Gouvernement, pp. 60–61). As a symbol of his devotion to the king, Guillaume de Nemours is buried in the Barbeau abbey, like his father, who was buried there close to the feet of Louis VII (Baldwin, Philippe Auguste et son Gouvernement, pp. 60–61, and Gallia christiana, col. 1623). His election to the bishopric of Meaux was maybe not only a consequence of royal influence: his uncle, Étienne de la Chapelle, had been a Bishop of Meaux too, from 1162 to 1172 (Pacaut, Louis VII et les élections épiscopales, p. 66). As he died almost forty years before Guillaume’s election, it is not certain that this kinship had an impact on it.

Christine Barralis

96

in 1298),31 Nicolas Volé or de Châlons (elected in 1305),32 and Simon Festu (elected in 1308), who was especially close to the queen, Jeanne of Navarre, but performed financial functions for the king too.33 A long fourteenth century follows, with a single election, which is bound at a very particular political moment, because it occurred in the first weeks of the Great Western Schism: the chapter took advantage of the fact that the obedience of the French clergy was not yet decided to briefly free itself from papal supervision and to elect a bishop. But Clement VII quickly took back control by appointing the candidate, thus recategorizing this election as a postulation after a so-called special reservation.34 This break in the practice of election during the fourteenth century is not a surprise: the installation of the papacy in Avignon came along with an increasing centralization of ecclesiastical power to the benefit of the papal Curia, and the importance of the number of papal provisions was already widely exposed.35 However, the substitution of papal appointment for the capitular election was not imposed everywhere in the same proportions. With 100 per cent of the bishops named by the pope during this period, the diocese of Meaux is an extreme case of this evolution, which meant that the canons no longer had much of a role in the choice of their bishop. The practice of election comes back in the fifteenth century, with five elections (on eleven bishops), but is exercised only in an impeded way. Indeed, the elections of the fifteenth century took place in specific political contexts, in which the right of the chapter applies almost only when it is in agreement with the royal choice. The election of 1418 is the only one which we can consider really to be free: the canons benefited from the application of the concordat dated 2 May 1418, which provided for the return to the elective system, keeping only a few rights of reservation and devolution.36 Afterwards, the king systematically let them know his preferences concerning the choice of the new bishop. In 1435, Pasquier de Vaux prevailed over his rival Philippe of Ruilly, Dean of Meaux, thanks to the 31

Barralis, ‘Gouverner l’Église à la fin du Moyen Âge’, iii, 553–55. Guilbert, Fasti ecclesiae Gallicanae, p. 276. 33 Tabbagh, Fasti ecclesiae Gallicanae. 11, p. 463, and supra, note 18. 34 Gallia christiana, col. 1637; Città del Vaticano, ASV, Reg. Aven. 217, fol. 517v. 35 Tabbagh, Les Évêques dans le royaume de France, pp. 45–60. 36 Melun, AD Seine-et-Marne, 10 G 1 (record of the election, November 1418). The pope confirmed the election on 10 July 1419 (Città del Vaticano, ASV, Reg. Lat. 204, fols 119v–121). About the concordat, see Valois, Histoire de la Pragmatique Sanction de Bourges, pp. ii–iii. 32

The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510

97

support of the government of the Duke of Bedford.37 And both elections of 1447 and 1459 are the result of the application of the Pragmatique Sanction of Bourges (1438), which officially gave way to the expression of the royal will.38 Yet, at the end of the civil war, the interest which the king had in the appointment of the bishops is strengthened by the strategic location of the city of Meaux, a powerful fortress on the Marne River near Paris, and he thus pressed clearly to impose his candidates.39 The chapter still did not accept without a fight the removal of their rights. For example, in 1435 and 1483, the chapter organized an election after the pope had provided a candidate. It seems plausible that these two elections mark the assertion of the chapter’s rights in the light of the king’s actions, who was relying on the pope to approve and provide his candidate, though the elections did not prevent in the end the appointment of the royal candidate. In 1435, the papal provision of the royal candidate, Pasquier de Vaux, is dated 23 September,40 the procurator of Pasquier committed to pay the services to the Apostolic Chamber on 28 September,41 and the election, which is disputed between Pasquier de Vaux and the dean of the chapter, is dated 31 October.42 By this election, the chapter acts both against the regent, whom the canons probably knew would urge the pope to appoint a faithful, and against Pope Eugene IV, whose general reservation to the Holy See of all bishoprics exceeding two hundred florins in value, published in 1431,43 applied to Meaux. In 1483, the king wrote to the canons on 20 May to warn them that he had written to the pope to ask for the appointment of his confessor, Jean L’Huillier, and to ask them not to proceed with an election without telling him.44 The papal bull for L’Huillier is dated 6 June, and the convocation by the chapter of the canons for the election dates 21 June.45 The papal bull has not been backdated to consolidate the rights of L’Huillier, as sometimes occurs,46 because we have a mention of a king’s letter to 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Du Plessis, Histoire de l’Église de Meaux, i, 290. Valois, Histoire de la Pragmatique Sanction de Bourges, p. lxxxiv. See supra, note 12, for the election of 1447. For that of 1459, see Gallia christiana, col. 1641. Città del Vaticano, ASV, Obl. et Sol. 66, fol. 45v. Città del Vaticano, ASV, Obl. et Sol. 70, fol. 150v. See supra, note 37. Valois, Histoire de la Pragmatique Sanction de Bourges, p. lxxiii n. 2. Meaux, BDGB, Phelippeaux, Antiqua Ecclesiae Meldensis monumenta, pp. 292–93. Città del Vaticano, ASV, Reg. Lat. 827, fol. 332r–333v; Melun, AD Seine-et-Marne, G 40, p. 41. Hayez, Mathieu, and Yvan, ‘De la supplique à la lettre’, pp. 181–82.

Christine Barralis

98

the chapter, pointing out that he was informed of some ‘illicit alliances’ (illicitas pactiones) to elect another one to the bishopric of Meaux, and enjoining the canons to approve the papal appointment. After the royal envoys left the chapter, the canons deliberated and agreed the king’s will on 4 July.47 So, de facto the canonical procedure of free election by the chapter and confirmation by the archbishop did not exist anymore in Meaux in the fifteenth century. For we have to underline that, besides the royal intervention, the bishops elected without dispute needed de facto a papal provision so that their appointment became real. The direct confirmation by the Holy See was not a completely new procedure: we already find some records of it in the thirteenth century.48 But its systematic character in the fifteenth century breaks with the previous practices. This evolution is not specific to Meaux: it is observed in the whole French kingdom at the end of the fifteenth century.49 However, the pope did not have complete freedom to choose the prelates. For royal influence was not only exerted on the elections: several appointments were made in line with the Crown’s wishes, even before the expression of it is officially set out by the Pragmatique Sanction of Bourges of 1438 or by the concordat of 1472. Indeed, the bishops appointed by the pope in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were almost all former members of the papal Curia or faithful servants of the Crown. Of the fourteen bishops of this period who were provided only by the pope, ten were the king’s servants or men close to the king,50 and three were close friends or faithful servants of the Holy See.51 This represents a much higher proportion than for the whole kingdom: among the bishops in charge in the fourteenth century, the proportion of previous servants of the pope is less than a third; the one of previous king’s servants is 35.8 per cent at the most, at the end of the century.52 The last one of these fourteen bishops, Louis de Melun, was appointed to Meaux in 1474 to allow a 47

Meaux, BDGB, Phelippeaux, Antiqua Ecclesiae Meldensis monumenta, p. 293. Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesitzungen in der Zeit von Gregor IX bis Boniface VIII, p. 40. 49 Véronique Julerot studied thirty-nine trials for bishoprics during the reign of Charles VIII (1483–98). Thirty-seven cases oppose a chapter’s candidate and a candidate appointed by the pope. Of the thirty-five bishops who won their lawsuit during this reign, thirty-one were appointed by the pope or needed papal approval ( Julerot, ‘Y a ung grant désordre’). 50 Guillaume de Brosse (1318), Jean de Meulan (1334), Philippe de Vitry (1351), Jean Royer (1361), Pierre Fresnel (1390), Jean de Sains (1409), Jean de Boiry (1426), Tristan de Salazar (1473), Jean L’Huillier (1483), and Jean de Pierrepont (1500). 51 Pierre de Jean (1321), Durand de Saint-Pourçain (1326), and Pierre de Versailles (1439). 52 Tabbagh, Les Évêques dans le royaume de France, p. 119. 48

The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510

99

royal candidate (the former Bishop of Meaux, Tristan de Salazar) to obtain the archiepiscopal see of Sens, where Louis de Melun should have succeeded his uncle after his resignation.53 In the end, more or less three quarters of the papal appointments to Meaux in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries result from a mark of favour from the pope to the king. Besides, royal support is sometimes coupled with internal negotiations into the Gallican clergy. Indeed, we observe, at least during the reign of Charles VI, some kinds of organized ‘successions’ between members of the royal court. So, in 1390 Pierre Fresnel and Guillaume de Dormans organize, with the support of the king, the translation of Dormans from Meaux to the archbishopric of Sens and the promotion of Fresnel at Meaux.54 Papal intervention thus only appears as a simple validation of an arrangement concluded within the royal court.55 The same scenario was repeated about twenty years later in 1409, when Jean de Sains, former secretary of Charles VI, was appointed in Meaux to replace Pierre Fresnel, translated to the bishopric of Noyon, where he replaced another member of the royal court, Philippe de Moulins, former notary and secretary of the king, ambassador then member of the king’s council.56

Conclusion From the end of the twelfth century to the beginning of the sixteenth century, the evolution of the appointment patterns of the bishops of Meaux is particularly clear. We cross from a majority of elections in the thirteenth century to an exclusive system of papal appointments during the period of the Avignon papacy and the Great Schism, before seeing in the fifteenth century some limited capitular elections. But by that time election by the chapter was no longer the determining factor in the choice of bishop. Even when capitular election took 53

Bouvier, Histoire de l’Église et de l’ancien archidiocèse de Sens, ii, 430. The two appointments are determined by the pope on the same day, 26 September (Città del Vaticano, ASV, Obl. et Sol. 82, fol. 85v). 54 Kaminsky, ‘The Early Career of Simon de Cramaud’, p. 526, and Kaminsky, Simon de Cramaud and the Great Schism, pp. 102–03. 55 The two papal letters of provision are dated on the same day, 17 October (Kaminsky, ‘The Early Career of Simon de Cramaud’, p. 526, and Città del Vaticano, ASV, Reg. Aven. 261, fol. 102). 56 Millet, ‘Biographie d’un rescapé de la méthode prosopographique’, p. 202. Pierre Fresnel and Philippe de Moulins had worked side by side many times: they were together in the Court of Aids in 1386–87 (Paris, ANF, Z/1a/1, fols Vr–VIv) and in the King’s Council (many references in Autrand, Naissance d’un grand corps de l’État).

Christine Barralis

100

place in the fifteenth century, it was secondary to the selection of the approved royal candidate who was to get the stamp of papal acceptance. An essential factor of the appointments from 1298 was the intervention of the king, who influenced almost all the later ones. In the twelfth century, the royal interventions in the selection of bishops seem very limited, and in spite of a first attempt of seizure by Philip Augustus, it indeed seems that during the main part of the thirteenth century the kings had hardly any influence on the choice of the bishops. The situation began to change from the end of the thirteenth century, with the conjunction of several factors. Firstly, the integration of the Champagne into the royal estates, then the centralization of the Church, and finally the strengthening of the royal power. These evolutions transformed the status of the bishopric of Meaux: from an ‘average’ bishopric, not very attractive to external clerics, it became a sought-after position for ambitious members of the royal administration, while its wealth and the number of its ecclesiastical benefices tended to drop because of the economic crises of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. So, the case of the bishopric of Meaux reveals that the attractiveness of an episcopal see did not only depend on its wealth or the size of its territory and population: the political location is also fundamental. Change it, and the sociology and the activities of its bishops — and so, the status of the bishopric — will change. All these political factors had indeed much impact on the bishopric of Meaux: they decreased the role of the local chapter in choosing the bishop, and the influence of the Crown on this choice then became not only obvious but dominant. This brought about two linked developments: the chapter gradually broke away from the bishop until it received a full exemption in 1383,57 and the bishops ceased to be mainly recruited from within the cathedral chapter and the local minor nobility. The service of the king and their intellectual skills and training then became the dominant criteria: from 1298, the bishops of Meaux were no longer the chapter’s men, but the king’s men.

57

Barralis, ‘Gouverner l’Église à la fin du Moyen Âge’, ii, 271–83. The exemption was cancelled by the council of Constance in 1418, like all the ones granted during the Schism (sessio LXIII, c. De exemptionibus).

The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510

101

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Auxerre, Archives départementales de l’Yonne, G33, n° 37 Città della Vaticano, Archivio Segreto [ASV] Obligationes et Solutiones 66, 70, 82 Registra Avenionensia 217, 261 Registra Lateranensia 204, 435, 827 Registra Vaticana 113 Meaux, Bibliothèque diocésaine Guillaume Briçonnet, Phelippeaux, Antiqua Ecclesiae Meldensis monumenta (MS Trésor T 30 1720) Meaux, Médiathèque municipale, MS 63 Melun, Archives départementales de Seine-et-Marne 10 G 1 G 40 Paris, Archives nationales de France J/344 J/198A X/1a/2 X/1a/4801 Z/1a/1 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France [BnF] MS fonds latin 5414A MS fonds latin 5993A MS fonds nouvelles acquisitions latines 7631

Primary Sources Achery, Luc d’, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum, new updated edn by Louis-François-Joseph De la Barre, vol. iii (Paris: François Montalant, 1723) Denifle, Henri, and Émile Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, vol.  iv (Paris: Delalain frères, 1897) Hoberg, Hermann, Taxæ pro communibus servitiis, ex libris Obligationum ab anno 1295 ad annum 1455 confectis (Città del Vaticano: Bibliotheca apostolica vaticana, 1947) Inventaire d’anciens comptes royaux dressé par Robert Mignon sous le règne de Philippe de Valois, ed. by Charles-Victor Langlois, Recueil des historiens de la France. Instruments financiers, 1 (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1899) Die Register Innocenz’  III., dir. by Othmar Hageneder and Anton Haidacher, vol.  x: Pontifikatsjahr 1207–1208, Texte und Indices, ed.  by Rainer Murauer and Andrea Sommerlechner, Publikationen des Historischen Instituts beim Österreischischen Kultur Institut in Rom, Abt. 2 – Quellen (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007)

102

Christine Barralis

Les Registres de Boniface  VIII: Recueil des bulles de ce pape, publiées et analysées d’après les manuscrits originaux des Archives du Vatican, ed.  by Georges Digard and others, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 2nd série, 4, 4 vols (Paris: De Boccard-Fontemoing, 1904–39) Les Registres de Grégoire  X, ed.  by Jean Guiraud, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 2nd serie, 12 (Paris: Thorin, 1892)

Secondary Sources Autrand, Françoise, Naissance d’un grand corps de l’État: Les Gens du Parlement de Paris (1345–1454) (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1981) Baldwin, John, Philippe Auguste et son Gouvernement (Paris: Fayard, 1991; trans. from the first edn, Berkeley, 1986) Barralis, Christine, ‘Le Choix des évêques dans le royaume de France à l’époque de Grégoire IX (1227–1241)’, in La France religieuse du jeune Louis IX, ed. by Catherine Vincent and Pascal Montaubin, Religion et société (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, forthcoming) —— , ‘Gouverner l’Église à la fin du Moyen Âge: Évêques et évêché de Meaux (1197–1510)’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 2004) Bouvier, Henri, Histoire de l’Église et de l’ancien archidiocèse de Sens, 3 vols (Amiens: Yvert et Tellier, 1911) Bur, Michel, La Formation du comté de Champagne (v. 950–v.  1150), Mémoires des Annales de l’est, 54 (Nancy: Publications de l’Université de Nancy II, 1977) Coville, Alfred, ‘Philippe de Vitri: Notes biographiques’, Romania, 59 (1933), 520–47 Digard, Georges, Philippe le Bel et le Saint­Siège de 1285 à 1304, 2 vols (Paris: Sirey, 1936) Du Plessis, dom Toussaints, Histoire de l’Église de Meaux, 2 vols (Paris: Julien-Michel Gandouin and Pierre-François Giffart, 1731) Favier, Jean, Philippe le Bel (Paris: Fayard, 1978) Gallia christiana nova in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa, vol. viii (Paris: Typographia Regia, 1744) Ganzer, Klaus, Papsttum und Bistumsbesitzungen in der Zeit von Gregor IX. bis Boniface VIII.: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Reservationen, Forschungen zu kirchlichen Rechtsgeschichte und zum Kirchenrecht, 9 (Cologne: Böhlau, 1968) Gaudemet, Jean, Le Gouvernement de l’Église à l’époque classique, vol. ii: Le Gouvernement local, Histoire du droit et des institutions de l’Église en Occident, 8.2 (Paris: Éd. Cujas, 1979) Guilbert, Sylvette, Fasti ecclesiae Gallicanae, vol. xiv: Diocèse de Châlons­en­Champagne (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015) Harvey, Katherine, Episcopal Appointments in England, c.  1214–1344: From Episcopal Election to Papal Provision (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014) Hayez, Anne-Marie, Janine Mathieu, and Marie-France Yvan, ‘De la supplique à la lettre: Le Parcours des grâces en cour de Rome sous Urbain V (1362–1366)’, in Le Fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon, Actes de la table ronde EFR­ CNRS (Avignon, 23–24 janvier 1988), Collection de l’École française de Rome, 138 (Rome: École française de Rome, 1990), pp. 171–205

The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510

103

Julerot, Véronique, ‘Y a ung grant désordre’: Élections épiscopales et schismes diocésains en France sous Charles VIII (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2006) Kaminsky, Howard, ‘The Early Career of Simon de Cramaud’, Speculum, 49 (1974), 499–534 —— , Simon de Cramaud and the Great Schism (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1983) Millet, Hélène, ‘Biographie d’un rescapé de la méthode prosopographique: Jean de Sains, officier des ducs d’Anjou et secrétaire de Charles VI’, in Penser le pouvoir au Moyen Âge (viiie–xve siècles): Études offertes à Françoise Autrand, ed. by Dominique Boutet and Jacques Verger (Paris: Éditions Rue d’Ulm, 2000), pp. 181–209 Pacaut, Marcel, Louis  VII et les élections épiscopales dans le royaume de France (Paris: J. Vrin, 1957) Rigault, Abel, Le Procès de Guichard évêque de Troyes (1308–1313), Mémoires et documents publiés par la Société de l’École des Chartes, 1 (Paris: Picard, 1896) Roland, Emmanuel, Les Chanoines et les élections épiscopales du xie au xive siècle (Aurillac: Imprimerie moderne, 1909) Tabbagh, Vincent, Les Évêques dans le royaume de France au xive siècle (Dijon: Éditions universitaires de Dijon, 2015) —— , Fasti ecclesiae Gallicanae, vol. xi: Diocèse de Sens (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009) Théry, Julien, ‘The Pioneer of Royal Theocracy: Guillaume de Nogaret and the Conflicts between Philip the Fair and the Papacy’, in The Capetian Century, 1214–1314, ed. by William Chester Jordan and Jenna Rebecca Phillips (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), pp. 219–59 Valois, Noël, Histoire de la Pragmatique Sanction de Bourges sous Charles  VII (Paris: Picard, 1906) Verger, Jacques, Les Gens de savoir en Europe à la fin du Moyen Âge (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1997)

Part II Episcopal Networks

Premeditation and Determination on the Way to the Polish Episcopacy in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries Jacek Maciejewski

E

cclesiastical careers of the higher clergy were to a significant extent determined by chance and fortune since the Church very seldom deposed its prelates, who usually exercised their offices lifelong. It meant that an opportunity to gain a bishop’s position appeared sometimes suddenly and generally due to the death or very serious illness of a hitherto existing diocesan pastor. In my essay I focus on noble families’ policy towards bishops’ appointments to show the importance of familial connections in supporting and preparing kinsmen for episcopal promotion. I will also ask if it was possible to become a bishop without such backing, thanks only to royal or papal support and personal determination. The chronological framework of my paper includes almost two centuries: from the beginning of the thirteenth century when the Polish Church obtained the right of capitular election until the 1370s when the combined factors of the reign of King Louis the Hungarian (1370–82), the Jagiellonian dynasty (from 1386), and the Western Schism (1378–1417) significantly influenced the appointment of Polish bishops, even more than the introduction of papal provisions in the fourteenth century.

Jacek Maciejewski ([email protected]) is a full professor at Kazimierz Wielki University, Bydgoszcz, Poland. He has published extensively on the medieval episcopacy in Polish and English. He is the author of three monographs, including Adventus episcopi (UKW, 2013) and co-editor of dozens of volumes, including Between Sword and Prayer: Warfare and Medieval Clergy in Cultural Perspective (Brill, 2018). He is currently undertaking research on the military activity of medieval clergy and episcopal appointments in medieval Poland. Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 107–120 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120614 BREPOLS

Jacek Maciejewski

108

In the late fourteenth-century chronicle written shortly after the death of King Kazimierz the Great (1370) by Janek of Czarnków there are several entries about contemporary episcopal appointments. Two of them concern the same election held in Poznań in 1375 resulting in the choice of Nicholas of Kórnik, a collector of many benefices and once royal chancellor of Kazimierz the Great. The chronicler shows us how the new elect outwitted the chapter, the majority of which was against him, using the form of election by way of compromise. The compromisers were picked unanimously because some of Nicholas’s followers pretended they supported his opponent, and by this trick he won 4:3. Janek, who for political reasons greatly disliked the new bishop, was doing his best to present these events as a betrayal or fraud which resulted in the election of a man full of criminality and without any virtues.1 However, he admitted that finally all the compromisers had agreed to the choice of Nicholas. This agreement is confirmed in the papal bull issued for Nicholas on 7 May 1375 which does not mention any protest or appeal in this case.2 Having cheated the chapter, the new elect — according to the chronicler — was to go to Avignon without the king’s or metropolitan’s permission. The narrative does not seem to be a very credible source, but it is instructive because it shows what the roles of the king and metropolitan were in the bishopmaking procedure and how individuals might use the election per compromisum to overcome the majority in the chapter. In respect of this 1375 election, there is no doubt that there was a clash between the two mighty clans, the Łodzia and Pałuki. Both of these kindreds had previously had their representatives on the episcopal throne in Poznań, and such familial rivalry here and in other Polish bishoprics already had a long tradition.3 It is especially characteristic that the first example of familial plotting and the selection of an individual for a bishopric is to be found in the very first Polish canonical election held in Cracow at the turn of 1207. The electoral freedom was a newly gained right of the local chapter which must be seen in the broader context as a part of a programme of Polish Church reform.4 The election itself 1

Kronika Jana z Czarnkowa, ed.  by Szlachtowski, pp.  665–66, 706–09; Kłoczowski, ‘Biskupi i kapituły’, pp. 205, 210; Jurek, Biskupstwo poznańskie w wiekach średnich, pp. 313–14. 2 Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, ed. by Theiner, i, n. 971, p. 721: ‘per viam compromissi concorditer elegerunt’. 3 Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, pp. 34–35. 4 See lately Baran-Kozłowski, Arcybiskup gnieźnieński Henryk Kietlicz, pp. 103–11, 119–85; Skwierczyński, Recepcja idei gregoriańskich w Polsce, passim.

premeditation and determination

109

was carried out by way of scrutiny, and the majority of the canons chose their former provost, then Bishop of Płock, Gedko. It meant that the bishop-making process was not yet complete, and the chapter had to make a postulation because the translation of bishops required papal approval.5 Although the canons of Cracow were far from unanimous the majority of the chapter agreed, just in case, to the appointment of master Vincentius, who was supported by another party.6 Later on, the case was settled in favour of the latter, but the person we are most interested in here is the winner of the Cracovian vote, Gedko. His origins and ecclesiastical career seem to be clear evidence of the kindred’s policy aim to obtain the Cracow episcopate and with a very ambitious clergyman, determined to achieve the appointed goal. Gedko came from the one of the most powerful families in twelfth-century Poland, and he probably began his Church career in Cracow under the watchful eye of his close relative (in the third degree according to the Church computation) Bishop Gedko of Cracow (1166–85) who was one of the most influential members of the Cracovian social and political elite of his time.7 The reasons why our Gedko did not become a bishop after the death of his namesake are obscure. One can only speculate that there were serious objections on the grounds of Church law. Alternatively, and more likely, he simply could not compete with a member of another aristocratic family, since the next bishop, Pełka (Fulco, 1186–1207) was the brother of the comes palatinus and a very active political player.8 Consequently our Gedko waited for around twenty years for his chance, but Bishop Pełka had a quite long pontificate. Therefore when in 1206 Bishop Wit of Płock died, Gedko decided to ascend the episcopal throne in Mazovia (in mid-north-eastern Poland, where the frontier see of Płock suffered much from pagan neighbours). Since Gedko’s kindred was very influential not only in Cracow but also in Mazovia, both 5

This election is well documented by the papal bull issued by Innocent III on 28 March 1208, Kodeks dyplomatyczny katedry krakowskiej św. Wacława, ed. by Piekosiński, p. 1, n. 7. For further references, see Baran-Kozłowski, Arcybiskup gnieźnieński Henryk Kietlicz, p. 123, nn. 286–88. 6 Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 49, 60, 101; Maciejewski, ‘Vincentius’s Background and Family Origins’, pp. 29–32. 7 Semkowicz, ‘Ród Powałów’; Bieniak, ‘Heraldyka polska przed Długoszem’, pp. 176–80; Bieniak, ‘Polska elita polityczna xii wieku’, pp. 19–20; Bieniak, ‘Kościelna Wieś i jej dzidzice w średniowieczu’, pp. 54f. and table 1; Śliwiński, Pogranicze kujawsko­pomorskie w xii–xiii w., pp. 15–16, 121–23; Szymaniak, Biskup płocki Gedko, pp. 113–30. 8 Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, p. 231; Maciejewski, ‘A Bishop Defends his City’; Bartos, ‘Post-Gregorian Episcopal Authority’, esp. pp. 19–27.

Jacek Maciejewski

110

lands were under the rule of the same ducal lineage, we can assume that his family’s very good relations with the ducal court and very strong position of his kin in Mazovia were decisive factors for his appointment.9 Only one year later Gedko must have regretted his decision, because after Bishop Pełka’s death the gate to the Cracovian cathedral seemed to have been opened. His efforts to come back to Cracow cannot be regarded as strange if we consider the role that this city played as the main Polish ducal and then royal centre. In addition, local bishops struggled for second place after the Archbishop of Gniezno within the Polish episcopacy since the turn of the twelfth century.10 And it so happened that Cracovian prelates even refused to be translated to the metropolitan see, which could not compete with Cracow in terms of political significance between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries.11 Gedko’s example shows very well how important family networks were for episcopal appointments in Poland. They became even stronger in the age of canonical election and did not lose their importance as a result of increased papal involvement in the fourteenth century. What I want to say is that the numbers of locally born bishops or bishops with prior connections to the diocese to which they were appointed were always in the majority throughout the period under consideration.12 It is true that since the beginning of the thirteenth century, thanks to the rise of clerical celibacy, there were no longer sons inheriting sees from their fathers, but other relations were still very important factors assisting promotion to episcopal office. For example, uncles from both sides of the family might help their nephews. However, the thirteenth century can be described as a time of struggles between the mighty and lower ranked knights’ families and as a period of competition between clerics representing many different clans. One can agree that the nobility monopolized access to the episcopal sees in Poland very quickly, and it also had the effect of making nepotism within the Church very common. Cathedral chapters were dominated by members of the nobility, and such prelates and canons elected bishops of the same rank and mostly from their own cathedral milieu. The bishops in turn did not forget their relatives 9

Szymaniak, Biskup płocki Gedko, pp. 150–55. Maciejewski, ‘Precedencja biskupów polskich’. 11 In 1220 Iwo Odrowąż, Bishop of Cracow (1218–29), refused to be translated to Gniezno, Umiński, ‘Arcybiskup Wincenty z Niałka’, pp. 142–43. Two centuries later Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki (1423–55) did the same, Koczerska, Zbigniew Oleśnicki i Kościół krakowski, pp. 260–61. See also Gąsiorowski, ‘Gniezno monarsze i Gniezno biskupie’. 12 Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 71–82; Maciejewski, ‘Which Way to Bishopric?’, pp. 210–11; Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, p. 28. 10

premeditation and determination

111

who were granted ecclesiastical benefices and became members of the chapters. But all of this did not result initially in the domination by the powerful clans of the Church structures and the creation of sui generis hereditary bishoprics. Episcopal dynasties were a common phenomenon in Poland but, as far as we know, not before the fourteenth century. Earlier it was only once that the see was transferred from one close relative almost immediately to another. I mean the Bishop of Wrocław Tomasz II who enjoyed long-lasting protection from the side of his cognate uncle Tomasz I. Both of them, representing one of the most noble and important family circles in Silesia, held that see for nearly sixty years (1232–92).13 This powerful kin did not limit their ‘episcopal’ policy to only one bishopric. Another of Tomasz I’s cognate and Tomasz II’s agnate in the third degree of Church computation, Wilhelm I of Nysa, became bishop in Lebus (1252–73),14 and it is interesting to notice how the order of rank affected that kinship policy. Whereas Wilhelm, who originated from a rather poor family who served the bishops of Wrocław as secular knights and officials, was endowed with a bishopric of lower rank, Tomasz II hailed from a family who were the duke’s officials or dignitaries and became a bishop of a far richer diocese. The family of Tomasz I also paid special attention to the metropolitan see in Gniezno. The origins of the Archbishop of Gniezno, Vincentius Niałek (1220–32), are not certain; he may have been, according to some historians, a member of the clan Jeleńczycy just like Tomasz I. Konrad, the first cousin of Tomasz I, and the chancellor of the bishopric of Wrocław, was almost elected Archbishop of Gniezno in 1271/72. However, the election was divided, and Konrad died before the dispute was resolved by the papacy.15 It is believed that the procedure of canonical election delayed the moment of the subordination of the respective Polish bishoprics by only one powerful clan because it created the possibility of competition due to many ecclesiastical and secular factors.16 It is worth noting that the making of a strong faction within a cathedral chapter was usually a long drawn-out process, so many bishops did not 13

With a short interregnum of around two years when the bishopric of Wrocław was administered by Duke Władysław, Archbishop of Salzburg, Jurek, ‘Slesie stirps nobilissima’; Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 72, 268–69. 14 Maciejewski, ‘Pochodzenie i kariera Wilhelma I’, pp. 85–90; Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 72–73, 240. 15 Umiński, ‘Arcybiskup Wincenty z Niałka’, pp. 146–49; Karasiewicz, Jakób II Świnka, p. 3; Silnicki and Gołąb, Arcybiskup Jakub Świnka i jego epoka, pp. 19–20; Jurek, ‘Slesie stirps nobilissima’, pp. 34f.; Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 72–73, 225. 16 Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 77–78.

Jacek Maciejewski

112

have enough time to secure their sees for their kinsmen. That is probably why the results of such processes are more apparent in the fourteenth century. It is also possible that richer sources, providing us with much more detail, help us to recognize the networks of family relations in the fourteenth century. The most impressive kinship network in relation to episcopal appointments was created in the fourteenth century by the Bishop of Włocławek Gerward of Ostrowo (1300–1323).17 It produced four or even five more bishops in Włocławek, Poznań, and Cracow, and at least two would-be pastors of dioceses of Włocławek and Poznań. Gerward was a very close follower and diplomat of Duke Władysław the Elbow, and it was he who negotiated with the pope in Avignon on the issue of the duke’s coronation.18 But Gerward was first of all amator suorum. He introduced to the Kujavian chapters several of his kinsmen,19 including his own brother Stanisław and his cognate nephew Maciej of Gołańcz and other relatives of the latter belonging to the clan of Pałuki. In the late 1340s three out of the five bishoprics within the borders of the Polish realm (Włocławek, Poznań, Kraków) were in hands of prelates whose ecclesiastical careers had begun in Kujavia thanks to Bishop Gerward. Two of them represented the Pałuki clan. The latter kindred held the see of Włocławek, after twenty-three years of Gerward’s pontificate, for a further sixty years, and another member of this family was brought up in the episcopal courts of his agnate uncles, to be the next bishop there.20 A very interesting example of kinship policies in respect of ecclesiastical affairs and personal determination en route to obtaining the highest ecclesiastical positions possible is Bodzęta of Września, who was also supported in his youth by Bishop Gerward, his consanguineus on the distaff side. By the time he was provided bishop by the pope, his clerical career had lasted for thirty-five years.21 Bishop Gerward was still alive when Bodzęta was promoted to the highest position in the Cracovian cathedral chapter becoming dean shortly before 17

Maciejewski, Działalność kościelna Gerwarda z Ostrowa, pp. 71–80. There are many secondary sources for this issue. For further references, see the general account of his political activity in Bieniak, ‘Gerward z Ostrowa’. 19 The diocese of Włocławek consists of two main territories: Kujavia and Eastern Pomerania. The see of the bishopric as well as the seats of the two cathedral chapters in Włocławek and Kruszwica were situated in the Kujavian part of the bishopric. Cf. Kumor, ‘Granice metropolii i diecezji polskich’, pp. 330–31; Kriedte, Die Herrschaft der Bischöfe von Włocławek, pp. 19–31 and a map. 20 Kłoczowski, ‘Biskupi i kapituły’, p. 208; Bieniak, ‘Fragment 1333–1341’, p. 27, Bieniak, ‘Krąg rodzinny biskupa kujawskiego Macieja Pałuki’, pp. 91–97; Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, pp. 25–26. 21 Niwiński, ‘Biskup krakowski Bodzanta’, pp. 225–29; Kowalski, Prałaci i kanonicy, p. 132. 18

premeditation and determination

113

October 1320. Then he was a supporter of the next two Cracovian bishops, not forgetting however his very close relations with the Bishop of Włocławek. It is worth noting that during his long service — twenty-eight years — as dean, some financial affairs were entrusted to him by different bishops, papal Peter’s Pence collectors, and other clergymen.22 When the bishopric of Cracow fell vacant in 1347 and the chapter chose a new pastor in spite of a papal reservation, Bodzęta was sent by the chapter with the new elect Piotr Szyrzyk, a royal vicechancellor, to the Apostolic See. In that very moment Bodzęta must have been in his late fifties at least and could not have expected any further ecclesiastical promotion. But fortune was on his side. Having got his papal provision as the elect of the Cracovian chapter, Piotr died in Avignon on 6 June 1348. Only one week afterwards, a new provision was given to Bodzęta who was already known in the Camera Apostolica and was well connected in the papal court.23 The rapidity and efficacy of the action undertaken by the dean of the Cracovian chapter may surprise and generate respect for his determination and abilities. All this happened without any consultation with the chapter and the Polish king of course and caused rather cold relations between the new Bishop of Cracow and the royal court.24 However, I do not share the opinion that the Cracovian chapter was also against its new pastor for several years.25 On the contrary, the Catalogi episcoporum Cracoviensium says that Bodzęta was elected in Avignon by two canons who accompanied him there.26 This idea, ridiculous from a legal point of view, seems to be an attempt in hindsight to express support for the new Bishop of Cracow from the chapter or to defend the chapter’s electoral rights against the increasing use of papal provisions. One may say that Bodzęta became a bishop in Cracow only by coincidence. But it is good to remember that he met all requirements set by the cathedral milieu with regard to candidates for diocesan bishops (for instance: noble origin, strong connections with the cathedral chapter and future diocese and/ or the ruler’s court).27 Besides, Piotr Szyrzyk and Bodzęta were relatives through 22

Niwiński, ‘Biskup krakowski Bodzanta’, pp. 228–29. Katalogi biskupów krakowskich, ed. by Szymański, pp. 103, 115, 194; Kalendarz katedry krakowskiej, ed. by Kozłowska-Budkowa, p. 151; Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, ed. by Theiner, i, n. 677. 24 Niwiński, ‘Biskup krakowski Bodzanta’, pp. 230–37. 25 Niwiński, ‘Biskup krakowski Bodzanta’, p. 236. 26 Katalogi biskupów krakowskich, ed. by Szymański, pp. 67, 103, 115, 195. 27 Cf. Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 70–86, 217–18; Maciejewski, ‘Which Way to Bishopric?’, pp. 210–11; Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, pp. 32–33. 23

Jacek Maciejewski

114

the latter’s mother who came from the Doliwa clan just like Piotr. In the future he would not forget them, and thanks to his support Jan Doliwa of Lutogniew became Bishop of Poznań in 1356.28 The procedure of Bodzęta’s promotion was not unusual in itself, and his appointment could have been controversial only because it was so unexpected and had not been agreed by the Polish participants in the electoral process. After all, the vast majority of Polish bishops in the fourteenth century formally owed their positions to papal provisions. However, endeavours to gain such a provision usually resulted from decisions made by the local electoral body as an outcome of canonical election or sometimes by means of negotiations with the king and other prominent ecclesiastics trying to secure a bishop’s position for royal servants or prelates’ relatives. In such a way, for instance, Archbishop Jarosław Bogoria (1342–74) tried to secure the sees of Włocławek and Gniezno for his nephews.29 The impression of domination by these noble family networks seems to be very impressive. What about other ambitious individuals who did not belong to this noble circle? Could they seek their chance by getting royal support or a papal provision? The response must be rather negative. The impact of the cathedral chapters’ links with the noble clans was so strong that no papal nominee could take over a Polish diocese during the reign of Kazimierz the Great (1333–70) if he was not a formal capitular elect. The best example is Andrzej of Wiślica who was designated by the pope for the bishopric of Poznań. He did not come from Great Poland but was a provost of the Poznań chapter and a supporter of the former bishop. He probably owed his dignity in the chapter thanks to his own activity in Avignon and royal protection, as he was chaplain and diplomat of both kings Władysław and Kazimierz.30 Therefore the lack of support from the royal court could not have been an obstacle for his episcopal promotion in 1347.31 But then he probably acted on his own, and neither the king nor the chapter knew anything about that. His own chapter, meanwhile, had another candidate who came from 28

Niwiński, ‘Biskup krakowski Bodzanta’, p.  235; Bieniak, ‘Heraldyka polska przed Długoszem’, p.  175; Radzimiński, Duchowieństwo kapituł katedralnych, pp.  248–49; Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, pp. 23–24. 29 Kronika Jana z Czarnkowa, ed. by Szlachtowski, pp. 652–54; Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, ed. by Theiner, i, nn. 944–45; Tęgowski, ‘Krąg rodzinny Jarosława Bogorii’, pp. 124, 128, 132–33; Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, pp. 29–30. 30 Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, ed. by Theiner, i, n. 315; Szczur, ‘Dyplomaci Kazimierza Wielkiego’, pp. 51–52; Jurek, Biskupstwo poznańskie w wiekach średnich, p. 310. 31 Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, p. 24.

premeditation and determination

115

the powerful Pałuki clan and was elected without waiting for a papal decision. Pope Clement VI was helpless, and after a short dispute lasting only one year, he decided to translate Andrzej from Poznań to Schwerin (in the modern German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), and the former see was granted to the elect of the Poznań canons.32 The decisive factor in Andrzej’s rejection was the absence of any backing from an important social group or faction caused by his origins from a German or Teutonized knights’ family settled in Silesia in the thirteenth century.33 It is worth recalling here the events after the Poznań election in 1265, when the Archbishop of Gniezno, after the rejection of the chapter’s elect, gave a provision to the bishopric to his dean Falenta (Valentine). In response to that the canons of Poznań appealed to Rome against his nomination on the grounds that Bishop Falenta was for them a completely alien person. They claimed that ‘nobody in Poland had known his place of birth or family background’.34 His high rank within the Church of Gniezno was a result of his close relations with the ducal court, but it did not help him to secure his position and his nomination was quashed by the pope. But the question arises why the popes, who altered in 1344 a formal procedure of episcopal appointments, agreed so easily to this public theatre and without almost any difficulties and so willingly gave their confirmations to capitular elects. This issue still requires further investigation and is a rather complex phenomenon, but because of the above-presented results of episcopal ordinations of Bodzęta of Września and Andrzej of Wiślica I would dare to hypothesize that the one of main reasons was noble families’ policy towards bishoprics. It could be supported by observation that Polish noble clans have not allowed foreigners or even aliens to achieve a position of a diocesan bishop in Poland since the beginning of the thirteenth century.35 Papal provisions at that time also did not bother the Polish King Kazimierz the Great as he was a very skilled diplomat and he understood the art of compromise. That is why in respect of episcopal appointments he gave chapters a free hand and 32

Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, ed. by Theiner, i, nn.  653–55, 670–71; Kaczmarczyk, Monarchia Kazimierza Wielkiego, pp. 136–37. 33 Jurek, Obce rycerstwo na Śląsku do połowy xiv wieku, p. 219; Jurek, Biskupstwo poznańskie w wiekach średnich, p. 310. 34 Chronicon Maioris Poloniae, ed. by Kürbis, p. 119: ‘de cuius conditione et natalibus tota Polonia ignorant’; Maciejewski, ‘Jak pozbyć się niechcianego biskupa?’. 35 Cf.  Radzimiński, Duchowieństwo kapituł katedralnych, pp.  239–60; Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp.  70–82; Maciejewski, ‘Which Way to Bishopric?’, pp. 210–11; Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, pp. 28–29, 33.

Jacek Maciejewski

116

remained tough only when he thought the Polish realm or his own interests were threatened as was the case in 1357 when the pope translated a certain Bernard, the son of an outcast, from Milcov to Płock. Besides, the king acted in line with the local cathedral chapter which also wanted to reject a person from outside its circle.36 Generally speaking, only three out of ten Polish bishops from the time of the aforementioned king were former curial officials, and the monarch was especially interested only in appointments to two bishoprics: Cracow and metropolitan Gniezno. In my opinion King Kazimierz, following the example of the powerful clans, also used the form of election per compromisum for securing a victory for his candidates. It is clearly visible in the case of the election of the Archbishop of Gniezno in 1342 when among the five compromisers all were the king’s followers.37 Finally, I would like to focus once more on the issue of how individuals used personal determination and premeditated action to gain episcopal office. We have already observed that episcopal appointments in medieval Poland were to a large extent controlled by different groups like the cathedral chapters and the noble clans. In spite of this, however, personal abilities and fast and sophisticated actions on one’s own could sometimes play an important or even decisive role on the way to a bishopric. In this respect one should pay attention to the most spectacular example that I have intentionally omitted so far, because here we have an exception. This can be applied to the well-documented, successful, and premeditated action en route to the episcopacy by Jan Muscata, Bishop of Cracow (1294–1320, exiled for a long time).38 He came from a burgher family of Wrocław, was promoted during the reign of Czech King Vaclav II (1291–1305), and owed his long ecclesiastical career principally to his cleverness and determination. His election by the Cracovian chapter is an absolutely outstanding example of carefully planned action where threats, bribes, and promises played a crucial role. By these means he was able to win over the royal governor in Cracow and secure his position amongst the Cracovian canons to such an extent that it resulted in his appointment as bishop, although he was not even a member of the aforementioned chapter.39 36

Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, pp. 27–28; Maciejewski, ‘Zabiegi króla Kazimierza III Wielkiego’, pp. 147, 149. 37 Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, ed. by Theiner, i, n. 576. Bieniak, Wielkopolska, Kujawy, ziemia łęczycka i sieradzka, p. 153. 38 The most comprehensive biography is the book by Pietras, Krwawy wilk z pastorałem. 39 For further information about the course of events during his election, see Maciejewski, ‘Czas i okoliczności objęcia rządów przez biskupa krakowskiego Jana Muskatę’.

premeditation and determination

117

My remarks can be concluded in this way that generally speaking the individual endeavouring to become a bishop needed very strong support from his noble kinsmen, especially influential ecclesiastics of higher rank: a bishop to prepare a suitable candidate in advance and cathedral chapter members to give support to their relative at the right moment. In the fourteenth century royal protection was sometimes also of significant importance, but the papal provision despite its formal domination was only one important stage during the process of episcopal appointment which can be compared to metropolitan confirmation in earlier times. Polish chapters were so effective in electing one of their own that one can claim the golden age of electoral freedom lasted in Poland until the 1370s.

Works Cited Primary Sources Chronicon Maioris Poloniae, ed. by Brygida Kürbis, Monumenta Poloniae Historica series nova, vol. viii (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1970) Kalendarz katedry krakowskiej, ed. by Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, Monumenta Poloniae Historica series nova, vol. v (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978), pp. 109–213 Katalogi biskupów krakowskich, ed.  by Józef Szymański, Monumenta Poloniae Historica series nova, vol. x (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1974) Kodeks dyplomatyczny katedry krakowskiej św. Wacława, ed.  by Franciszek Piekosiński (Kraków: Akademia Umiejętności, 1874) Kronika Jana z Czarnkowa, ed.  by Jan Szlachtowski, Monumenta Poloniae Historica, vol. ii (Lwów, 1872) Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, vols  i–ii, ed. by Augustino Theiner (Rome, 1860–61)

Secondary Sources Baran-Kozłowski, Wojciech, Arcybiskup gnieźnieński Henryk Kietlicz (1199–1219): Działalność kościelna i polityczna (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2005) Bartos, Sebastian P., ‘Post-Gregorian Episcopal Authority and the Struggle for Ducal Kraków, 1177–1210’, Polish Review, 58.3 (2013), 3–33 Bieniak, Janusz, ‘Fragment 1333–1341 w twórczości dziejopisarskiej Janka z Czarnkowa, 1’, Zapiski Historyczne, 48.4 (1983), 5–29 —— ,  ‘Gerward z Ostrowa’, in Słownik biograficzny Pomorza Nadwiślańskiego, vol.  ii (Gdańsk: Gdańskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 1994), pp. 37–40

118

Jacek Maciejewski

—— ,  ‘Heraldyka polska przed Długoszem’, in Sztuka i ideologia xv wieku: Materiały sympozjum Komitetu Nauk o Sztuce PAN Warszawa 1–4 grudnia 1976, ed. by Piotr Skubiszewski (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978), pp. 165–210 —— ,  ‘Kościelna Wieś i jej dzidzice w średniowieczu’, in Kościelna Wieś na Kujawach: Studium osadnicze, ed.  by Leszek Kajzer (Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 1994), pp. 41–106 —— ,  ‘Krąg rodzinny biskupa kujawskiego Macieja Pałuki (Korekta do Rodu Pałuków Władysława Semkowicza)’, Zapiski Historyczne, 50.3 (1985), 85–117 —— ,  ‘Polska elita polityczna xii wieku, 2: Wróżda i zgoda’, in Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznej, vol.  iii, ed.  by. Stefan K. Kuczyński (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1985), pp. 13–74 —— ,  Wielkopolska, Kujawy, ziemia łęczycka i sieradzka wobec problemu zjednoczenia państwowego w latach 1300–1306, 2nd edn (Wodzisław Śląski: Wydawnictwo Templum, 2011) Gąsiorowski, Antoni, ‘Gniezno monarsze i Gniezno biskupie w średniowieczu: Problem rezydowania’, in 1000 lat Archidiecezji Gnieźnieńskiej, ed. by Jerzy Strzelczyk and Janusz Górny (Gniezno: Prymasowskie Wydawnictwo Gaudentinum, 2000), pp. 143–63 Jurek, Tomasz, Biskupstwo poznańskie w wiekach średnich (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, 2018) —— , Obce rycerstwo na Śląsku do połowy xiv wieku (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 1996) —— ,  ‘Slesie stirps nobilissima. Jeleńczycy – ród biskupa wrocławskiego Tomasza I’, Roczniki Historyczne, 58 (1992), 23–58 Kaczmarczyk, Zdzisław, Monarchia Kazimierza Wielkiego: Organizacja Kościoła, sztuka i nauka (Poznań: Księgarnia Akademicka, 1946) Karasiewicz, Władysław, Jakób  II Świnka, arcybiskup gnieźnieński 1283–1314, Prace Komisji Teologicznej Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk, 3.3 (Poznań: Nakładem Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 1948) Kłoczowski, Jerzy, ‘Biskupi i kapituły w dziele Janka z Czarnkowa’, in Mente et litteris: O kulturze i społeczeństwie wieków średnich, ed. by Helena Chłopocka and Brygida Kürbis (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1984), pp. 205–12 Koczerska, Maria, Zbigniew Oleśnicki i Kościół krakowski w czasach jego pontyfikatu (1423–1455) (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2004) Kowalski, Marek D., Prałaci i kanonicy krakowskiej kapituły katedralnej od pontyfikatu biskupa Nankera do śmierci biskupa Zawiszy z Kurozwęk 1320–1382 (Kraków: Towarzystwo Miłośników Historii i Zabytków Krakowa, 1996) Kriedte, Peter, Die Herrschaft der Bischöfe von Włocławek in Pomerellen von den Anfängen bis zum Jahre 1409 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) Kumor, Bolesław, ‘Granice metropolii i diecezji polskich (966–1939)’, Archiwa, Biblioteki i Muzea Kościelne, 18 (1969), 289–352 Maciejewski, Jacek, ‘A Bishop Defends his City, or Master Vincentius Troubles with the Military Activity of his Superior’, in Between Sword and Prayer: Warfare and Medieval Clergy in Cultural Perspective, ed.  by Radosław Kotecki, Jacek Maciejewski, and John S. Ott (Leiden: Brill, 2018), pp. 341–68

premeditation and determination

119

—— ,  ‘Czas i okoliczności objęcia rządów przez biskupa krakowskiego Jana Muskatę’, Studia Historyczne, 43.2 (2000), 315–26 —— ,  Działalność kościelna Gerwarda z Ostrowa, biskupa włocławskiego w latach 1300–1323 (Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uczelniane WSP w Bydgoszczy, 1996) —— , Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej 1180–1320 (Kraków: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego Vistulana, 2003) —— ,  ‘Jak pozbyć się niechcianego biskupa? Rywalizacja o katedrę poznańską w latach 1265–1267’, in Historia narrat: Studia mediewistyczne ofiarowane Profesorowi Jackowi Banaszkiewiczowi, ed.  by Andrzej Pleszczyński and others (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2012), pp. 253–62 —— , ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu duchowieństwa prowincji gnieźnieńskiej a obsada stolic biskupich w czasach Kazimierza Wielkiego’, Rocznik Niepołomicki, 2 (2010), 13–35 —— , ‘Pochodzenie i kariera Wilhelma I z Nysy, biskupa lubuskiego w latach 1252–1275’, Roczniki Historyczne, 68 (2002), 85–95 —— , ‘Precedencja biskupów polskich w Polsce piastowskiej’, Nasza Przeszłość, 99 (2003), 5–25 —— ,  ‘Vincentius’s Background and Family Origins: The Evidence and Hypotheses’, in Writing History in Medieval Poland, ed. by Darius von Güttner-Sporzyński (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), pp. 19–42 —— , ‘Which Way to Bishopric?’, in Carreiras Eclesiasticas no Ocidente Cristao (sec. xii– xiv) / Ecclesiastical Careers in Western Christianity (12th–14th c.) (Lisbon: Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 2007) pp. 209–17 —— ,  ‘Zabiegi króla Kazimierza  III Wielkiego o obsadę stolic biskupich’, in Kazimierz Wielki i jego państwo: W siedemsetną rocznicę śmierci ostatniego Piasta na tronie polskim, ed.  by Jacek Maciejewski and Tomasz Nowakowski (Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego, 2011), pp. 139–49 Niwiński, Mieczysław, ‘Biskup krakowski Bodzanta i Kazimierz Wielki’, Collectanea Theologica, 17.1–2 (1936), 225–62 Pietras, Tomasz, Krwawy wilk z pastorałem: Biskup krakowski Jan zwany Muskatą (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2001) Radzimiński, Andrzej, Duchowieństwo kapituł katedralnych w Polsce  xiv i xv w. na tle porównawczym: Studium nad rekrutacją i drogami awansu (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1995) Semkowicz, Władysław, ‘Ród Powałów’, Sprawozdania z Czynności I Posiedzeń Akademii Umiejętności w Krakowie WH­F, 19.3 (1914), 19–20 Silnicki, Tadeusz, and Kazimierz Gołąb, Arcybiskup Jakub Świnka i jego epoka (Warszawa: PAX, 1956) Skwierczyński, Krzysztof, Recepcja idei gregoriańskich w Polsce do początku xiii wieku (Wrocław: Fundacja na Rzecz Nauki w Polsce, 2005) Szczur, Stanisław, ‘Dyplomaci Kazimierza Wielkiego w Awinionie’, Nasza Przeszłość, 66 (1986), 43–106 Szymaniak, Marek, Biskup płocki Gedko (1206–1223): Działalność kościelno­polityczna na tle procesu emancypacji Kościoła polskiego spod władzy książęcej (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, 2007)

120

Jacek Maciejewski

Śliwiński, Błażej, Pogranicze kujawsko­pomorskie w xii–xiii w.: Z dziejów Bydgoskiego i Wyszogrodzkiego w latach 1113–1296, Prace Wydziału Nauk Humanistycznych BTN, Seria C, 32 (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1989) Tęgowski, Jan, ‘Krąg rodzinny Jarosława Bogorii’, in Genealogia – polska elita polityczna w wiekach średnich na tle porównawczym, ed. by Jan Wroniszewski (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1993), pp. 123–37 Umiński, Józef, ‘Arcybiskup Wincenty z Niałka, następca Henryka, zw. Kietliczem’, in Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Władysława Abrahama, vol. ii (Lwów: Gabrynowicz i Syn, 1931), pp. 137–66

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile: The Cathedral Chapter at Sigüenza (Fourteenth – Fifteenth Centuries) Aída Portilla González

T

his essay is based on results obtained in the course of the doctoral thesis that I am completing. My case study aims to clarify the relationship between power, society, and culture through the study of a particular social group: the cathedral clergy at Sigüenza Cathedral. To be precise, the study aims to analyse the role of bishops, kings, pontiffs, and cardinals in the provision of benefices, while concentrating particularly on the bishops. We shall also assess the importance of clientelism networks and kinship in obtaining benefices. Clientelism, from Latin clientelus, relates to links between a boss or person that held some kind of power, frequently a member of the high ecclesiastical hierarchy, and a servant or protected that has the support by the previous to hold posts, as we will see next. The medieval town of Sigüenza is located on the eastern side of the Province of Guadalajara, between Aragon and Castile (see Map 6.1). Its episcopal see suffered the ups and downs of the reconquest of the lands under Muslim rule after the eighth century, until King Alfonso VII of Castile (1126–57) completed the definitive conquest and restored the bishopric. Following the policy of

Aída Portilla González ([email protected]) is a Doctor in Geography and History at Cantabria University. Her Development Plan is ‘Culture, Power and Social Networks in Medieval Castile: The Clergy of the Dioceses of Burgos and Sigüenza during the Late Middle Ages. Culture, Power and Social Networks in Medieval Castile’, reference HAR2016-79265-P, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Innovation, the State research agency. Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 121–151 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120615 BREPOLS

Aída Portilla González

122

alliance with the Order of Cluny started by Alfonso VI (1073–1109) and put into practice by the metropolitan see in Toledo, its first two bishops in the twelfth century were Cluniacs from Aquitaine (Bernardo de Agén occupied the bishopric until 1124 and Pedro de Leucata until 1156).1 The jurisdictional lordship of the cathedral chapter at Sigüenza was approved by Rome in 1150.2 Political and military instability in the lands where the bishoprics in Castile and Leon were situated meant that many of them opted to work together after their restoration. At Sigüenza, as it was a frontier town, the single body formed by the bishop and cathedral clergy, professing the Rule of St Augustine, lasted two centuries. Only when all Muslim threat had disappeared did they obtain from Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303) the secularization of the corporation in 1300, and regular life was abandoned.3 As will be seen below, social and clientelism networks existed within the cathedral chapter. Many of these were linked to prelates and cardinals, who also maintained frequent contacts with the chapter, as their intervention in the possession of benefices was significant. The sources used to determine the networks of power and kinship have been mostly the minutes of the cathedral chapter at Sigüenza. These are in total eight books or tomes covering the period between 1416 and 1512,4 as unfortunately the minutes from the fourteenth century have not been conserved. One important source to envisage kinship and clientelism networks has been the wills of the cathedral clergy,5 which also shed light on aspects related to religiousness, mentality, patrimony, and inheritance of the properties of the cathedral clergy. Other less important sources that have also helped to determine networks have been letters of sales and possessions,6 litigation,7 and benefice charters.8

1

Muñoz Párraga, La catedral de Sigüenza, pp. 21–41. With a bull issued by Pope Eugene III (1145–53), later confirmed by Alexander III (1159–81). Cf. Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, i, 487. 3 Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, i, 360. 4 These eight books are in the Capitulars Archive of Sigüenza (ACS). These minutes are not published. 5 ACS, Leg. 65, Testamentos. 6 ACS, LD., Sign. 88, Cartas de ventas y posesiones. 7 ACS, Leg. 129, Litigios. 8 ACS, Leg. 98, Beneficios. 2

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

123

Power Relationship in the Chapter at Sigüenza Social relationships seem to have been a key factor in obtaining a position in the cathedral. Intervention in naming positions of the different institutions is clearly indicative of the dispute of interests between popes, cardinals, kings, bishops, and the chapter itself. These all fought to designate people who were close to them in the chapter, either to acquire more authority than the rest or to assist their own position by placing someone loyal to them in the cathedrals, which were forceful centres of power in the Middle Ages. From the early Middle Ages to the thirteenth century, according to council decrees and regulations, the provision of benefices was the exclusive right of the pope. However, in the thirteenth century, the pontiff was not the only one who held that power. The rise of the monarchy and the institutional strength of bishops and the chapter itself resulted in the pope beginning to share that right with those other institutions.9 Table 6.1 (in the appendix below) presents objective data about the type of designations in Sigüenza Cathedral in the period from 1416 to 1520. A total of three hundred provisions have been documented, of which 141 were through the mediation of the bishop. However, this essay will only take into account interventions involving the bishop alone or in the company of the chapter. These interventions, added to kinship and relationships of the episcopal personalities, gave rise to the social networks studied in the second part of the paper.

Episcopal Interventions in the Benefice System at Sigüenza Alfonso X ‘El Sabio’ (1221–1284) in the Partidas established the customary law in every church.10 This law grants each church the authority to decide who was permitted to make the collations: the bishop or the chapter. Between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the bishops were obliged to rely on various members of the chapter to make the choice. The proceeding changes, along with the secularization of the chapter and the creation of the capitulars table, as already mentioned,11 apart from the episcopal one, shows that the capitular corporations start to take control of their fate and were gaining strength against the other 9

V. de Reina wrote an essential work about the benefices system. His work offers a splendid global vision about origins and development of the benefices system in the Church. De Reina, El sistema beneficial. Also, we can remark on others’ works: Fliche and Martín, Historia de la Iglesia; and Mansilla, Iglesia castellano­leonesa y curia romana en tiempos del rey San Fernando, p. 218. 10 Las Siete Partidas del Rey D. Alfonso El Sabio. 11 See note 3, above.

Aída Portilla González

124

Map 6.1. Diocesan Hispanic Geography, 1250–1500. Source: Mansilla Reoyo, D., Geografía eclesiástica de España: estudio histórico­geográfico de las diocesis, ii (Iglesia Nacional Española, 1994), p. 1005.

powers. According to Mansilla’s research, the chapters attempted to provide benefices exclusively to people from the diocese and to avoid, as far as possible, people from outside the ecclesiastical jurisdiction.12 The most obvious is that the Cathedral of Sigüenza would have followed guidance from the metropolitan see whose chapters from the fourteenth century 12

Mansilla analysed the statutes of the Cathedrals of Zamora, Ávila, Burgos, Calahorra, Salamanca, Lugo, Segovia, and León. Mansilla, Iglesia castellano­leonesa y curia romana en tiempos del rey San Fernando, pp. 215–46.

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

125

we do conserve.13 Archbishop Blas Fernández determined in 1357 that the chapter should chose its own prelate, and in conjunction with this they must provide the canonries and rations. Furthermore, he defends that the vacant canonries, which are without taking, must be given to the rations, whereas the dignitaries must be elected by the canons, except the dean who had to be approved by the archbishop.14 During the fourteenth century the chapter and the diocesan clergy appear to emerge as the cathedrals’ leading figures, but during the fifteenth century things change. The chapter records that indicate to us how the provisions were made during the fifteenth century are missing, but we do have information obtained from the capitular archive. In Sigüenza, during the fifteenth century the bishop’s power grew to the detriment of the power of the chapter. As can be seen in Table 6.1, the chapter together with the bishop is the most repeated formula as they made eighty-nine designations (29.67%). To be more exact, in reality the chapter only ratified the bishop’s provision. The pope intervened directly in fifty-eight provisions (19.33%), without counting the other twenty-four (8%) designated with the confirmation of the chapter. In third place, the prelate without the chapter made forty-three collations (14.33%). It can further be seen that Rome intervened, either with other institutions or alone, in 96 collations (32%) and the bishop in 141 (47%). The prelates included Cardinal Pedro González de Mendoza (1428–1495) and Bernardino López de Carvajal (1456–1523). Both institutions, the pope and the bishops, clearly prevailed in the introduction of benefice holders in the chapter at Sigüenza. The bishops formed the second institution with the most power when placing men they trusted in cathedral posts. The collations made in this way differed from the others because the candidate, or his representative, appeared before the chapter with a letter-provision direct from the prelate, and the chapter had no option to refuse the collation. Thus 15 per cent of the provisions were made in this way and 30 per cent in a ‘joint’ action with the chapter, even though most of the time the chapter was only obeying the prelate. It should be noted that some of the bishops at Sigüenza, like Alonso Carrillo de Acuña (1410–1482)15 and Pedro González de Mendoza,16 enjoyed the good fortune of attaining the 13

Lop Otí, El Cabildo Catedralicio de Toledo en el siglo xv, pp. 208–09. Mansilla, Iglesia castellano­leonesa y curia romana en tiempos del rey San Fernando, pp. 208–09. 15 Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 132–42; Mirecki, ‘Apuntes genealógicos y biográficos de don Alfonso Carrillo de Acuña’, pp. 55–76. See the Appendix to find out more about these bishops. 16 Albors y Albors, La Inquisición y el cardenal de España; Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de 14

126

Aída Portilla González

archbishopric of Toledo at the same time as they were bishops at Sigüenza. The Sigüenza bishopric was also a springboard to reach Rome because various bishops obtained the cardinalate. In fact, two bishops became cardinals: Pedro González de Mendoza and Bernardino López de Carvajal. Both of these played a major role within the chapter, as we will see next. Table 6.2 shows the 43 provisions in which the prelates acted alone, of the 141 in which they took part (see Table 6.1). Of these, eleven were dignitaries: five archdeacons, two deans, two precentors, one treasurer, and a teacher. Eight of these were named by Cardinal Mendoza, the prelate who made most provisions, a total of twenty-two, without counting the twenty-nine he made together with the chapter. In these, the cardinal took care of his family and his chamberlain Bartolomé de Medina, who received a ration or stipend. One important designation, on 10 October 1480, as vicar general of the bishopric, was Gonzalo Jiménez de Cisneros, the future cardinal and Archbishop of Toledo. Cardinal Mendoza was his protector. The next prelate, Bernardino López de Carvajal (1495–1511), was the bishop who intervened in the second most numerous designations of prebends: seventeen alone and thirty-seven with the chapter. He named two people from his circle to hold the posts of dignitaries: Francisco de Carvajal, his relation, his nephew possibly, was made precentor,17 and the archdeaconry of Molina was given to his servant Andrés de Arenas.18 Of the four canonries he named, three went to relatives: Vasco de Carvajal (27 April 1500),19 Rodrigo de Carvajal (12 March 1505),20 and, again, Francisco de Carvajal (20 April 1506).21 The only half ration in which he intervened also went to a relative, Diego de Peñaranda (28 June 1506).22 It has been seen that of the joint bishop-chapter provisions, eighty-nine collations (29.67%) were made by the bishops and accepted obediently by the chapter. Although this is a large number, only seven of these were dignitaries, and most were canonries and half rations. Again Cardinal Mendoza and Cardinal la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 169–95; Huarte y Echenique, El Gran Cardenal de España; Justi, Don Pedro de Mendoza; Lampérez y Romea, Los Mendoza del siglo xv y el Castillo del Real de Manzanares; Yaben, El cardenal Mendoza; Layna Serrano, El cardenal Mendoza como político y consejero de los Reyes Católicos; Villalba Ruiz de Toledo, El Cardenal Mendoza; Layna Serrano, Historia de Guadalajara y sus Mendozas; Layna Serrano, Castillos de Guadalajara. 17 ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fol. 102r. 18 ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 251v–252r. 19 ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fols 104v, 107v–108r. 20 ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fol. 174r–v. 21 ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 252r–253v. 22 ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 264r–265r.

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

127

López de Carvajal intervened the most: thirty-seven appointments were named by the latter and twenty-nine by the former (see Table 6.3). The figure of Fernando López de Luján (1449–65) also stands out,23 with twenty-one appointments, mostly to the López de Madrid family. Pedro González de Mendoza, who was bishop, archbishop, and cardinal, intervened in fifty-one appointments. The provisions ratified by the chapter included people close to his circle of friendships. Again, his chamberlain and relative Bartolomé de Medina received several prebends including a ration,24 a canonry,25 and the archdeaconry of Almazán.26 Similarly, his servant Velasco de Barrionuevo received two half rations27 and a canonry,28 while another relative, Suero de Humaña, obtained a canonry.29 The prebends for the Torres family should also be mentioned.30 His successor, Bernardino López de Carvajal, intervened similarly. As stated above, he named seventeen appointments alone and thirty-seven together with the chapter, totalling the considerable figure of fifty-four designations. Of the thirtyseven he made with the chapter, the cardinal’s relatives again appear, like Francisco and Cristóbal de Carvajal. Francisco de Carvajal became precentor at Sigüenza, while Francisco and Cristóbal de Carvajal received canonries.31 His relative Hernán López de Buendía32 and the nephew of his relative Sancho de Antezana, Diego de Antezana,33 also received stipends from Cardinal López de Carvajal. The importance of the two bishops-cardinals, Mendoza and López de Carvajal, is seen in the interventions in favour of provisions. The number of provisions mediated by them, 105, corroborates the power of the two cardinals to introduce their family and friends in the chapter corporation. They both used 23

Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 150–62. ACS, Lib. Reg. 3, fols 26v–27r. 25 ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 2r. 26 ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fols 107v–108r. 27 ACS, Lib. Reg. 3, fol. 68r–v; Lib. Reg. 3, fol. 35v. 28 ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fols 43r–44r. 29 ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 4r. 30 Canonry from Luis de Torres to his brother, Rodrigo de Torres, in which the cardinal intervened: ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 1r; Juan de Torres obtained the archdeaconry of Sigüenza thanks to the intervention of Cardinal Mendoza: ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fols  69v–70r ; Causa permutationis between Rodrigo de Torres and Luis de Torres: ACS, Lib. Reg. 3, fol. 27r–v. 31 ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 122r–123v. 32 ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 18r–19v. 33 ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fol. 56r; Lib. Reg. 7, fols 131–132v. 24

Aída Portilla González

128

their privileged position to reward their relations. The all-embracing power of Mendoza was not circumscribed exclusively to Sigüenza. In Toledo, according to Lop Otí, ‘his arrival collapsed all the provisions causing the Toledan chapter to protest’.34

Social Networks around the Bishops: Nepotism and Episcopal Clientelism To comprehend the diagrams on social networks it is essential to revise and reflect on the aim of this new analysis of social networks that has become part of the historiography of recent decades. This new research paradigm (or methodology) only began to be used recently. And its development, made through diagrams and computer programs, is only recent.35 The first step to forming a social network is to compile the sources and from there to link the connections between them, retracing the interactions and studying its dynamics.36 Clearly, the analysis of social networks exceeds the prosopography and becomes an indispensable tool of research in the history of power. In medieval history, the social networks show the dynamics of power among the social elites of the Middle Ages.37 Isabel de Val was one of the historians who opened the debate on the necessity of studying and analysing the kinship networks between members of a society, not just amongst them but with other statements of power outside their city.38 From there on Spanish researchers began to apply the social networks analysis to medieval history.39 During 34

Lop Otí, El Cabildo Catedralicio de Toledo en el siglo xv, p. 213. The essential ideas about social networks analysis are in the work of Imizcoz, ‘Las redes sociales de las élites’. 36 Levi, La herencia inmaterial; Levi, ‘Sobre microhistoria’. 37 Asenjo González and Rodriguez, Oligarchy and Patronage in Late Medieval Spanish Urban Society. 38 Del Val Valdivieso, ‘Élites urbanas en la Castilla del siglo xv’, p. 76. 39 Martín Romera, ‘Redes medievales’; Carvajal de la Vega, ‘Redes socioeconómicas y mercaderes castellanos’; Ortega Rico, ‘Financieros y redes financieras en tiempos de Juan II’; Sales i Favà, ‘Crédito y redes urbanas’; Miranda, ‘Portugal y las redes mercantiles en la Europa Atlántica’; Añibarro Rodríguez, ‘Las redes portuarias en las Cuatro Villas de la Costa de la Mar durante la Baja Edad Media’; Quinteros Cortés, ‘Redes socioeconómicas al servicio del mercado negro bajomedieval’; Martínez Araque, ‘Las diversas relaciones sociales y las estrategias familiares’; Vitores Casado, ‘Compañías vascas en torno al arrendamiento y recaudación de la renta de los diezmos de la mar de Castilla a fines de la Edad Media’. 35

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

129

the nineties of the last century F. Padgett and Christopher Ansell studied Florence in the times of the Médici and the network they constructed around themselves.40 Recently, Scandinavian history has begun to be analysed from the perspective of social networks and friendship ties in a work edited by Jon Vidar Sigurdsson and Thomas Smäberg.41 Whereas in the field of the medieval Iberian peninsula there have also been studies on friendship ties but without undertaking social network analysis.42 The analysis of social networks reveals the extent of nepotism within the ecclesiastical spheres. Nepotism developed within the ecclesiastical institutions with the firm purpose of securing high powers to members of the family that otherwise would be impossible to achieve. But, who were considered relatives at different times in history?43 In the study by Christian Ghasarian on family ties he includes not only the persons linked by blood but also people connected by interactions of mutual help between individuals to gain power or to profit.44 So, in the family relations are included not only the ones related by blood but also patron–client relations. Both types of relations mentioned we have found in the present study of the chapter of Sigüenza. There is no doubt that these family related members used to help one another whether they were connected by blood or just by a patron– client relation. The clerical establishment has been formed to integrate both types of relations, especially in what concerns the high clergy. Nepotism was a key aspect to give stability to the ecclesiastical institution, particularly from the end of the thirteenth century. But this phenomenon is not only found among popes but also with cardinals, bishops, and members of cathedrals’ chapters.45 One of the most direct ways to enter the chapter corporation consisted of possessing relatives close to the elites holding power. Family favouritism and nepotism surrounding the bishops was a hard problem to solve. The prelates 40

Padgett and Ansell, ‘Robust Action and the Rise of the Médici’. Sigurdsson and Smäberg, Friendship and Social Networks in Scandinavia. This book is essential to increase the knowledge about social networks in medieval Scandinavia and Europe. It shows how the social networks, family and social ties, aid in obtaining power and improving social positions. In conclusion, the personal ties are necessary tools to get power. 42 Liuzzo Scorpo, Friendship in Medieval Iberia. 43 There is quite a historiography of the family and its size in the Middle Ages: Herlihy, ‘The Making of the Medieval Family’. 44 Ghasarian, Introducçao ao Estudo do Parentesco. 45 Important works to know on nepotism in the Church in the Middle Ages are Carocci, Il nepotismo nel medioevo; Prodi, Lo sviluppo dell’assolutismo; and Reinhard, ‘Nepotismus’, p. 166. 41

Aída Portilla González

130

tended to introduce their close relations and kin in the chapter and assist their promotion in their ecclesiastic career. Table 6.4 shows the names of the prelates at Sigüenza who were related to members of the chapter institution. The family members who entered the chapter during the prelacy of their bishop relatives have been differentiated from those who entered before or after, in order to discern the traffic of influences in the diocese more clearly. Of all the men, in total twenty-six, who wore the episcopal mitre in the diocese of Sigüenza after 1300, ten had relatives within the chapter (see Table 6.4). However, this number may be misleading as the prelates whose relatives held important posts before or after their government should be subtracted. This is the case of Simón Girón de Cisneros (1300–1326), whose descendants formed a major part of the cathedral clergy in the fourteenth century. One example is Gonzalo or Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros (1436–1517), who became Archbishop of Toledo and was named cardinal.46 Before, he obtained a less privileged post as chaplain in Sigüenza Cathedral.47 The case of the relatives of Bishop Juan Serrano (1390–1402) is similar, as in later years at least nine of them formed part of the chapter at Sigüenza. Two consecutive prelates were related, as they were uncle and nephew. Alonso Carrillo de Albornoz (1422–34),48 whose bishopric occupied the late fourteenth century and early fifteenth, was able to ensure that his nephew, Alonso Carrillo de Acuña,49 succeeded him in the Sigüenza diocese (1436–46) before becoming Archbishop of Toledo (1446–82). Carrillo de Acuña also helped his kin to form part of the Sigüenza chapter. He named López Carrillo vicar general of his bishopric in 1439,50 and possibly influenced in the provision of the archdeaconry of Almazán received by Pedro Carrillo,51 who was equally his relative. In a letter of payment dated in 1446 the companion of Sigüenza, Gonzalo Carrillo, another relative of the bishop, was included in the witness list.52 Finally, his vicar, Alfonso 46

More information about Cardinal Cisneros is in García Oro, Cisneros. On 27 March 1480, Jiménez de Cisneros appears as chaplain at Cathedral of Sigüenza. Cf. ACS, Lib. Reg. 3, fol. 88r–v. 48 Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 125–32; Chacón, ‘Essai de liste générale des cardinaux’, p. 156. 49 Esteve Barba, Alfonso Carrillo de Acuña; Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 132–42. 50 ACS, Leg. 98, Beneficios, fol. 1r–v. 51 ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fol. 21r. Here he appears as Archdeacon of Almazán on 21 March 1448. 52 ACS, Leg. 98, Beneficios, fol. 1r–v. 47

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

131

Gutiérrez de Sigüenza,53 has also been included in his social-family network. Although the documents of provisions are not available, the importance of ties of blood can be intuited in the designations of high positions of power, such as vicariate and archdeaconry. During his brief bishopric, Gonzalo de Santa María (1446–48)54 introduced an important relative, Rodrigo de Luna, who received a canonry before being appointed Archbishop of Santiago.55 The latter’s servant, Pedro Alfonso Serrano, was awarded such advantageous prebends as a canonry56 and the archdeaconry of Molina (1448),57 as seen in the Serrano family. Gonzalo’s successor, Fernando de Luján (1449–65), 58 intervened in the provision of a canonry in favour of his relative Pedro López de Madrid in 1453.59 The surname López de Madrid was frequently found within the Sigüenza chapter. In fact, Diego López de Madrid was the next to wear the mitre (1465–66), or rather to usurp it, as he was considered an ‘intruder’ and was forced to leave.60 Another relative, Fernando López de Madrid, Pedro’s brother,61 held the posts of treasurer62 and archdeacon at Medina63 in the 1450s, as well as possessing a canonry.64 Fernando may be the brother of the ‘intruder’ bishop.65 Juan López de Madrid received a ration from Bishop Fernando de Luján in 1454.66 In sum, the López de Madrid family used their links with the circles of power to attain high positions in the ecclesiastic hierarchy. Thus, the four relatives of Diego López de Madrid did not enter the chapter through his influence but through that of other 53

ACS, Leg. 65, Testamentos, fols 1–10v. Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 143–47. 55 ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fol. 51v. 56 ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fols 4–5v. In this document he figures as canon on 14 January 1448. 57 ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fol. 21r. In this document he appears as Archdeacon of Molina on 21 March 1448. 58 See note 21, above. 59 ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fols 62v–63v. 60 Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 160–62. 61 ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fols 62v–63v. 62 ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fol. 80r–v. 63 ACS, Lib. Reg. 4, fol. 23r. 64 ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fols 48r–49r. 65 Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 160. 66 ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fols 58r–60v. 54

Aída Portilla González

132

prelates to whom they were related, such as Fernando de Luján, who seems to have introduced this family into the Sigüenza cathedral clergy. Six of Cardinal Mendoza’s relatives have been identified in the twenty-eight years that his bishopric lasted (see Table 6.5). Diego de Mendoza was a canon at Sigüenza;67 Juan de Medina, a relative, received a ration;68 Fernando de Valencia, a relative, was canon at Sigüenza;69 Martín de Algora, a relative, was awarded a canonry through Mendoza;70 Suero de Humaña, a relative, obtained a canonry,71 as did Gabriel de Mendoza.72 However, as well as ties of blood, patron–client relationships were established. The prelate attempted to promote his allies, not only his kin but also his servants. Two of Cardinal Mendoza’s servants prospered in Sigüenza Cathedral. One of them, Velasco de Barrionuevo, rapidly climbed in his ecclesiastic career. In 1479, Mendoza intervened in his favour to obtain a half ration,73 and later, in 1490, when the servant was Archpriest of Buitrago, he was awarded a canonry in Sigüenza Cathedral, again thanks to Mendoza’s help.74 The second servant, Bartolomé de Medina, received his first ration in 1482,75 thanks to his patron’s mediation. Curiously, this prebend belonged to Juan de Cuenca, the cardinal’s chaplain, and was transferred to Bartolomé de Medina when he was still Mendoza’s servant and chamberlain. In 1488, through the intervention of Pope Innocent VIII, he became Archdeacon of Almazán,76 a post which smoothed his path towards further prebends. Thus, in 1490, Mendoza gave him a canonry,77 and in 1492 the pontifical Curia awarded him another canonry.78 Despite being neither clients nor servants, Juan de Cuenca, Mendoza’s chaplain, Diego de Muros, his secretary, and Alfonso Díaz, his receiver, enjoyed Mendoza’s favours when he was awarding benefices. Juan de Cuenca appears as 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 81r. ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 3v. ACS, Lib. Reg. 3, fols 79r–80v. ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fol. 68r–v. ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 4r–v. ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 162v. ACS, Lib. Reg. 3, fol. 68r–v. ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 2r. ACS, Lib. Reg. 3, fol. 27r–v. ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 107r–v. ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 2r. ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 67r–v.

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

133

possessing a ration in a document dated 23 November 1482,79 while Diego de Muros possessed a half ration in Sigüenza Cathedral in 1480.80 His rise in the institution was unstoppable. In 1485, Pope Innocent VIII intervened in his appointment as head chaplain in the cathedral, a post that was then regarded as a dignitary.81 The first time he appears in documents as Mendoza’s secretary is in 1489.82 Probably by this time he held the post of teacher, as in 1493 this was exchanged together with a ration in favour of Fernando Gómez.83 The last man linked to Cardinal Mendoza is Alfonso Díaz, canon from 1477.84 On 10 October 1480 he was regarded as the cardinal’s receiver in the sentence in which it is demonstrated that the ‘town of Moratilla was always incorporated in this town at the head of the royal requests at the chests’.85 This shows that he was trusted by the great cardinal. The next prelate, named cardinal in 1493, Bernardino López de Carvajal, also manoeuvred in favour of his family so that they could join Sigüenza chapter. Nine close relations of this bishop have been identified among the cathedral clergy (see Table 6.6). In 1500, Francisco de Carvajal became precentor in a provision mediated directly by his relative the cardinal.86 Five years later, he intervened in awarding a canonry to Rodrigo de Carvajal, who in 1508 was elevated to Archdeacon of Medina,87 also thanks to his important relative, although we do not know degree of kinship. Cristóbal de Carvajal enjoyed the same fortune, as he became canon in 1507,88 with the approval of chapter and cardinal. Another relation, Alonso de Carvajal, was appointed Archdeacon in Sigüenza89 through pontifical bulls, behind which Cardinal López de Carvajal’s advice was surely concealed. Diego de Peñaranda and Hernán López de Buendia, both catalogued 79

ACS, Lib. Reg. 3, fol. 26r–v. 80 ACS, Lib. Reg. 3, fol. 85r–v. 81 ACS, Lib. Reg. 4, fol. 13r–v. 82 Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, Cd. 167, p. 57. 83 ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 100r–v; Lib. Reg. 5, fols 141v–142r. 84 ACS, Lib. Reg. 3, fol. 24r–v. 85 ACS, Leg. 129, Litigios, fols 1r–3r. 86 ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fol. 102r. According to the official chronicler of Cáceres, Santos Benítez Floriano, ‘D. Francisco de Carvajal y Sande, Mecenas Cacereño’, the cardinal Bernardino López de Carvajal was Francisco’s uncle. 87 ACS, Lib. Reg. 8, fols 84r–85r. 88 ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 122r–123v. 89 ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fol. 120r.

Aída Portilla González

134

Diagram 6.1. Mendoza’s Social Network

as relatives, also enjoyed the cardinal’s favours as they obtained a ration in 150590 and a half ration in 1506,91 respectively. However, the person who most benefited from the favours of the generous cardinal was Sancho de Antezana. The cardinal awarded him a half ration in 1496,92 a year later he intervened to make him precentor,93 and in 1499 he finally became archdeacon.94 The other influences of Cardinal Bernardino López de Carvajal, apart from his family, affected not only his servant, but also his vicar general and judicial vicars, as they formed part of his circle of power. His servant,95 Andrés de Arenas, became Archdeacon of Molina96 after the invaluable mediation of his patron. He later accumulated other benefices in such different places as Poveda, Castejón, and Salamanca.97 Curiously, the vicar general and judicial vicars were related to 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 264r–265r. ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 18r–19v. ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fols 22r–23r. ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fols 103v–104r. ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fols 43r–44r. ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fol. 23r. ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fol. 251r–v. ACS, Leg. 65, Testamentos, fols 1r–10r.

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

135

one another as they belonged to the ‘López de Frías’ family. The first to form part of the cardinal’s circle was Juan de Frías. According to the minutes consulted, in 1496 he acted as judicial vicar for Bishop López de Carvajal when a half ration was awarded to Sancho de Antezana,98 the latter’s relative. He appears in later documents as the ‘cardinal’s prebendary’, the post with which he received his canonry in 1497.99 The next ecclesiastic, Clemente López de Frías, appears in the minutes as apostolic protonotary from 1504, the year in which he became dean in Sigüenza.100 Later, in 1506 Pope Julius II intervened in transferring a ration, in which the protonotary received it and Fernando Carrión exchanged it.101 In addition, in the ratification of the statute on divine worship and the choir in 1509, Clemente López de Frías appears as ‘apostolic protonotary, church dean, official judicial vicar, and vicar general of Sigüenza bishopric’.102 The last of the Frías family, Luis López de Frías, was indexed in the post of judicial vicar when Diego de Peñaranda, cited above as the cardinal’s relative, took possession of a half ration.103 All these individuals are clear examples of the importance of maintaining clientelism links with the elite of power. The data show that in the late Middle Ages it was more efficacious to be in the orbit of powerful men than to acquire full academic training.104

98

ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fols 22r–23r. ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fols 102r–103v. 100 ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 119v–120r. 101 ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 26r–27v. 102 ACS, Leg. 98, Beneficios, leg. 12, fols 1–5r. 103 ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 264r–265r. 104 In Girón de Cisneros’s social network appears the future cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, who studied Law at Salamanca University (Suárez Fernández, ‘Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros’). From Serrano’s social network we know that Martín Serrano studied singing in Sigüenza (ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fol. 17v); Alonso González Serrano was bachelor (ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fol. 8v); and Juan Serrano was licentiated in Law in Avignon (Rius Serra, ‘Estudiants espanyols a Avinyo al segle xiv’). From Mendoza’s social network, we know that Diego Hurtado de Mendoza studied in Salamanca University (Sanz Serrano, ‘El legado del cardinal Hurtado de Mendoza a la Catedral de Sevilla’); Martín de Algora studied singing in Sigüenza in 1498 (ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fol. 17v); and Diego de Muros was professor (ACS, Leg. 129, Litigios. fol. 1r–7r) and licentiate in Theology (ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 186v). From Bernardino López de Carvajal’s social network, we know only that Francisco de Carvajal studied Theology at Salamanca University, thanks to Benítez Floriano (see note 87). 99

136

Aída Portilla González

Diagram 6.2. Bernardino López de Carvajal’s Social Network

Conclusion To reconstruct the sociability networks in the surroundings of the cathedral and to determine the model of ecclesiastic career that prevailed among the clergy in the diocese and cathedral at Sigüenza, it has proved very useful to take as a parameter the regulations and practice in the provision of ecclesiastic benefices. Only through the analysis of these provisions is it possible to assess the importance of Sigüenza cathedral chapter in the cursus honorum of the Castilian clergy and the role played by pontiffs, kings, archbishops, bishops, cardinals, and the chapter itself in the provision of canonries and dignitaries. A total of three hundred provisions of different types of prebends have been documented, and the authority or institution that promoted the candidates who received those prebends has been recorded from 1416 to 1520. The study shows that the chapter together with the bishop was the most frequent (29.67%), whereas the chapter acted alone in fewer than 10 per cent of the provisions (8.67%). However, even this low figure is higher than in the case of the chapters at Toledo, Murcia, and Santiago, while it is lower than at Burgos, for example. At Sigüenza, the chapter made most of those provisions when the episcopal see was vacant (1448–49) or they were provisions of two very specific canonries created in the late fifteenth century for a theologian and a jurist.

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

137

The second most frequent situation was intervention by the pope, in fifty-eight provisions (19.33%), without counting the other twenty-four (8%) designated accompanied by the chapter. In third place, the prelate without the chapter made forty-three collations (14.33%). It can further be seen that Rome intervened, either with other institutions or alone, in 96 collations (32%) and the bishop in 141 (47%). Both institutions, the pope and the bishops, clearly prevailed in the introduction of benefice holders in the chapter at Sigüenza. The influence of monarchs is only seen in nine provisions. It is well known that ecclesiastics in the royal court, bishops and cardinals, influenced the provisions recommended by the monarch and acted on the monarch’s behalf. However, the opposite might also occur. Thus, for example, the cardinal and bishop Pedro González de Mendoza, who played a key role in the Castilian court as a diplomat and main counsellor of Queen Isabella I (1474–1504), must have taken the queen’s preferences into account in the provision of prebends in Sigüenza chapter. It is no coincidence that four bishops of Sigüenza in the fifteenth century were made cardinals, or that another two became archbishops of Toledo. This chapter clearly illustrates the interactions between monarchy, pontiff, and episcopal sees. The paradigm of these interactions may be the designations promoted by Cardinal Mendoza and Cardinal López de Carvajal, both of them bishops at Sigüenza in the late fifteenth century. There is no doubt that the two institutions dominated the benefice system in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, when they eclipsed the authority of the chapter. However, it should be noted that of those 138 provisions with pontifical influence, only thirty-four occurred in the fourteenth century. In the course of the fifteenth century the chapter lost power to the prelates linked to the archbishopric of Toledo, who liaised between the pontifical court and the Castilian monarchs. This double channel intensified during the pontificates of Sixtus IV (1471–84) and Alexander VI (1492–1503) with the two cardinals mentioned above: Mendoza and López de Carvajal. The networks identified in the network diagrams show that these two prelates simply continued in a strategy developed by their predecessors in the fourteenth century: the introduction of relatives and servants in the chapter. In the centre of these networks were the ones formed by Bishop Simón Girón de Cisneros (1300–1327), with five relatives in the cathedral; by the Archbishop of Toledo and Bishop of Sigüenza, Alfonso Carrillo de Acuña (1422–34) who had seven, including his uncle, Bishop of Sigüenza; by the Archbishop of Santiago (1451–60), Rodrigo de Luna, who was related to the Bishop of Sigüenza, Gonzalo de Santa María (1446–48) and also canon in Sigüenza; the network of Bishop Fernando de Luján (1449–65), who introduced the López de Madrid family into the cathedral; by the cardinal and

138

Aída Portilla González

bishop Pedro González de Mendoza, with eleven men from his circle among relatives and servants, who included Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, Archbishop of Seville (1486–1502); and, finally, by the cardinal and bishop non-resident in Sigüenza, Bernardino López de Carvajal (1495–1511), with thirteen chapter members related to him either by kinship or artificial kinship and service. The practice of nepotism seems to contradict the model of promotions established in the chapter statutes. These forbade promotion to canon without having been a portionary or half portionary previously. However, Sigüenza chapter agreed to appoint canonries and dignitaries without the need for an ecclesiastic career in the same cathedral. The men who obtained promotion were closely related to the prelates, such as Sancho de Antezana (precentor and dean) and Diego de Muros (Chancellor of Sigüenza and Bishop of Ciudad Rodrigo, Mondoñedo, and Oviedo) in the late fifteenth century. In this way, it can be deduced that dignitaries and canonries were designated directly by prelates and pontiffs. In short, the final portrait drawn by the contributions of the research summarized here is one of a cathedral chapter that shared with other Castilian chapters that have been studied many of the social, institutional, and cultural elements of episcopal sees. However, the reconstruction of the sociability networks woven by its clergy and the practice of nepotism have brought to light a clear differentiating trait in its social composition: the presence of men close to the centres of power, the archbishop see of Toledo (primate see of Castile), the royal court, and the pontificate. In its social dimension, Sigüenza chapter was filled by individuals close to the centres of power in medieval Castile. By consulting the sources, it is known that the cathedral clergy in Sigüenza was associated with authorities in high levels of ecclesiastic hierarchy, such as Cardinal Mendoza and his successor Bernardino López de Carvajal, who were fully integrated in the royal court and the pontifical Curia. The sources also show the existence of kinship and clientelism links between the bishops at Sigüenza and the chapter clergy. In this way, Sigüenza cathedral chapter participated in the centres of power and their social networks in medieval Castile, as occurred correspondingly at other Spanish and European cathedrals.

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

Appendix Bishops: Interventions and Relatives

139

Table 6.1. Types of Appointment

140 Aída Portilla González

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

141

a Juan Gallego (6 February 1496); Juan de Bordalva (1496, on 8 December 1497 and on 11 May 1500 too); Juan de Ambrosio (2 February 1502); Juan Martínez de Sigüenza (15 February 1480): he was made succentor and given a half ration. b Martín López (3 February 1448): they take the opportunity to name him in a vacant see. c Juan Martínez de Sigüenza (21 March 1448); Pedro González de Illescas (3 February 1448), canonry and then another half-ration; Pedro de Palazuelos (11 August 1449); Miguel López de Esteras (6 October 1452); Francisco de Herrera (26 September 1479); Pedro de Ciruelo (19 March 1502), canonry and later professorship of philosophy; Diego de Muros (22 February 1488), canonry of theology, one year later the professorship. d Ration awarded to the doorman in name of the choir, Martín de Mosquera (5 August 1500). Doorman with ration to Miguel Sánchez. Miguel de Sigüenza (4 December 1479). e Juan Martínez (26 March 1448), carpenter; Lope González, Mozo (3 February 1448); Juan de Morón (21 February 1477), ‘the gentlemen voted to give him a half ration’; Diego Fernández de Poveda (25 January 1479); Juan Fernández de Poyatos (15 February 1480): he was awarded a half ration when he was named procurator; Pedro Martínez de S. (15 August 1486); Pedro González de Illescas (2 March 1448): he was Archdeacon of Trujillo and was awarded a half ration, vacant see; Alonso López de Calatayud (Prior) (20 May 1502): the prior added a half ration to the dignitary. f Antón López (teacher) (6 May 1448): he was awarded the benefice of Morón, Ferrería, and Barahona. g Luis de Torres (28 September 1453), together with a pension. h Theology: Diego de Muros (2 April 1489); Philosophy: Pedro de Ciruelo (19 March 1502). i A half ration was given as a pardon. j In the Bishops Table, chaplains are included in the dignitaries, as it was regarded as such in the late fifteenth century.

Table 6.2. Interventions by the Bishops

142 Aída Portilla González

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

143

Juan Ibáñez (10 September 1407). López Carrillo (1439); Diego Gutiérrez de Villaycan (24 December 1443). c Lope Martínez (30 November 1448). d Fernando Alfonso de Guadalupe (15 September 1472). e Gonzalo de Dena (11 July 1482); Gonzalo de Dena (3 September 1491). f Alfonso Yáñez (22 June 1482). g Almazán: Fernando de Montemayor (30 December 1493); Medina: Juan de Torres (23 December 1485) and Fernando López de Madrid (23 December 1485); Sigüenza: Juan de Torres (23 December 1485): he was awarded Medina but he himself changed it for Sigüenza. h Fernando Gómez (7 November 1493). i Ochoa Pérez González de Sigüenza (30 September 1474); García de Silva (14 September 1485). j Bartolomé de Medina (23 November 1482); García de Salvatierra (1 June 1479), nephew of Abbot Ochoa Pérez, who was also his procurator; Antón de Orellana (17 October 1489), son of Luis de Hurtado, who was also his procurator; Pedro Gutiérrez (3 December 1485). k Juan Gutiérrez de Brihuega (14 September 1493); Rodrigo de Avendeta (9 July 1482); Juan Sauca el Mozo (23 October 1492). l Fernando de Montemayor (13 September 1493). m Gonzalo Jiménez de Cisneros (10 October 1480). n The ration left by Pedro de Algesilla went to the cantor on the cardinal’s orders, 11 May 1480; Juan Fernández de Madrid (1482). o Andrés de Arenas (17 April 1506). p Francisco de Carvajal (5 April 1500) and again in 1506. q Luis de Montealegre (14 December 1499); Vasco de Carvajal (27 April 1500); Rodrigo de Carvajal (12 March 1505); Francisco de Carvajal (20 April 1506): he was precentor and was given a canonry. r Andrés de Arenas (16 January 1501). s Diego de Peñaranda (28 June 1506). t In Sigüenza: Esteban Fernández (7 July 1505); Diego López de Anguciana (29 December 1505); Antonio Gutiérrez de Herrera (12 February 1508); Diego de Peñaranda (diocese de Osma) (28 June 1506* perhaps not included): he is from Osma. u Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro (15 July 1497); Francisco de Valdivieso (28 March 1505). v Juan Álvarez (15 July 1497); Fernando López de Madrid (14 February 1504). w Diocese of Calahorra: Juan de Aberasturi* (he may not be included because he is not from Sigüenza, 1 April 1512). a

b

Table 6.3. Joint Bishop and Chapter Intervention

144 Aída Portilla González

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

145

Alfonso Lezerro (22 March 1443). Pedro Martínez de Villacadina. c Fernando López de Madrid (30 April 1453); Juan Fernández de Medina (26 November 1453). d Juan Ruiz (27 October 1449) given a canonry in Doc. 203, and on 1 February 1453 he was given another ration; Pedro López de Madrid (5 January 1453); Pedro Sánchez Ochoa (29 May 1453); Toribio Fernández (8 April 1454); Nuño González (31 December 1454); Lope González de Medina (27 October 1453): the chapter was given the power for him to receive a canonry causa permutationis; Gabriel Martínez (23 November 1453): he received a canonry together with the chapter, after making a complaint; Lope A., nephew of Juan de Cuevasrubias (25 December 1453): he arbitrated in an exchange. e Fortunato de Uceda (30 August 1449); Diego López de Madrid (30 August 1449); Juan Ruiz (1 February 1453); Nuño González (13 April 1453); Juan López de Madrid (31 December 1454). f Alfonso de Madrid (3 October 1449): Bishop Fernando de Luján authorized Pedro Serrano to award in his name a half ration to Alfonso de Madrid; Juan Pérez (17 December 1449): Fernando de Luján and Pedro Carrillo provided Juan Pérez with a half ration. g Sancho de Frías (19 December 1449); Luis Fernández (29 May 1453); Lope Gonzalez de Medina (27 October 1453), companion. h Sacristan of El Punto: Diego González de Cuenca (12 August 1449). i Pedro González de Mendoza held, almost simultaneously, the posts of Bishop of Sigüenza and cardinal. He was named Bishop of Sigüenza in 1467 and cardinal in 1473. The provisions and appointments to posts indexed in the database begin in 1479, and therefore in the table, the two posts have been joined together to avoid doubts. On 13 November 1482 he became Archbishop of Toledo and held three positions: bishop, archbishop, and cardinal. j Archdeacon of Molina: Luis Juárez (15 February 1480). k Gómez de Orellana (29 June 1474). l Rodrigo de Cañizares (28 February 1480); Alfonso de Boadilla (21 March 1480); Fernando Gallego (20 September 1482); Alfonso de Sigüenza (28 March 1480), ratified by the chapter; Bernardino López (27 October 1477), ratified by the chapter. m Álvaro Rodríguez de Alcalá (27 December 1479). n Miguel de Sigüenza, doorman and singing-teacher (15 September 1479); Diego Fernández (29 June 1474), appointed by the judicial vicar, Juan Lope de Medina, the Archdeacon of Almazán, and ratified by the chapter; Velasco de Barrionuevo (10 October 1479). o Pedro de Castrejón (8 September 1486); Rodrigo de Torres (28 August 1488); Fernando de Montemayor (2 December 1489); Diego Fernández de Poveda (7 September 1486); Bartolomé de Medina, who was already Archdeacon of Almazán (5 January 1490): designated by the cardinal and the chapter confirmed the appointment; Velasco de Barrionuevo (4 June 1490); Alfonso Yáñez (27 June 1492), ratified by the chapter; Suero de Humaña, a relative of the cardinal (2 July 1490). p Bartolomé de Medina (23 November 1482); Martín de Algora (30 April 1490); Luis Álvarez (27 October 1489); Gil de Concha (25 October 1485). q Velasco de Barrionuevo (8 March 1483); Fernando de Espinosa, chamberlain of Juan de León (16 November 1489): ‘collation of our reverend cardinal’ and ratified by the chapter; Fernando Tierno (5 October 1486 and 24 January 1487), ratified by the chapter; Fernando López de Trijueque (22 December 1494), by ‘ordinary authority’, later ratified by the chapter; Gonzalo Rodríguez de Torres (17 October 1485). r Archpriest of Buitrago: Gonzalo A. de Trujillo (5 January 1487). s Francisco de Carvajal (6 December 1504), by ordinary authority (first appointed by the bishop and then confirmed by the chapter); Sancho de Antezana (6 December 1497), designated by the judicial vicar Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro in the bishop’s name; the chapter obeys. t (The chaplain was a dignitary in 1496.) Juan Martínez de Villel (23 January 1496), appointed by ‘ordinary authority’ and later confirmed by the gentlemen of the chapter. u Miguel de Párraces (6 October 1495) was awarded the canonry corresponding to the professorship of theology; Francisco López de Paones (3 December 1496): Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro, judicial vicar of the bishopric, awarded him a canonry and the chapter was ‘disposed to comply’; Fray García Bayón, Bishop of Laodicea (11 a

b

146

Aída Portilla González

March 1505): ‘told the gentlemen that he was appointed by the ordinary authority […] on the orders of the Reverend Cardinal Bernardino López de Carvajal’, then the gentlemen of the chapter read the designation and, ‘nemine discrepante’, said that they acquiesced; Diego de Arriaga (31 December 1505), ‘ordinary authority’, ‘alternating’; Ignacio de Collantes (27 June 1506), ‘presented the collation of His A. Or.’ and after reading it the gentlemen said they ‘were disposed to comply’; Bachiller Antonio (28 June 1506): ‘He told the gentlemen that his worship […] had presented said appointment to said canonry’, presumably from the prelate; Dr. de Ágreda (18 May 1507), ‘by ordinary authority’; Cristóbal de Carvajal (30 September 1507), ‘ordinary authority’; Juan de Barreda (23 February 1508): ‘collation made to him’, he says no more, but presumably by the prelate BLC; Martín de Algora (7 July 1497): he was awarded by the judicial vicar of the bishopric Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro and the chapter obeys; Rodrigo de Torres (11 March 1499), by ordinary authority and confirmed by the chapter; Luis Juárez (16 October 1501), by judicial vicar Don Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro, and therefore the bishop BLC; Juan Álvarez (9 October 1504), cardinal and then ratified ‘nemine discrepante’ by the gentlemen of the chapter; Francisco de Pelegrina (13 September 1505), by ‘ordinary authority’ and confirmed by the chapter. v Diego de Antezana (28 June 1504), nephew of the dean Sancho de Antezana: ‘The gentlemen when the appointment had been read said that they would acquiesce and they acquiesced’; Rodrigo de Soria (9 March 1510), ‘designated by ordinary authority’; Hernán López de Buendía (2 September 1506), relative of BLC, designated by the bishop and confirmed by the chapter; Pedro de Gamboa (5 January 1496): he delivers the designation made by the judicial vicar of the bishopric, Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro; Pedro de Llama (2 May 1495), ordinary authority; Juan Vallejo (26 July 1497), judicial vicar Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro; Diego Serrano (17 November 1505), ordinary authority and ratification by the chapter; Miguel de Villel (8 January 1504), ordinary authority, the chapter ratifies. w Juan Gutiérrez de Brihuega (2 December 1495), relative of Pedro Gutiérrez, treasurer: the judicial vicar of the bishopric, Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro, delivered the designation to the gentlemen of the chapter, and three days later they accepted ‘nemine discrepante’ ‘with the prelate’ who at that time was Bernardino López de Carvajal; Gerónimo Zapata (6 February 1496): the gentlemen of the chapter confirm the designation that was likely made by the bishop; Rodrigo Zapata (23 May 1496): he was awarded ‘auctoritas ordinaria’, a half ration that belonged to his brother Gerónimo, who renounced it; the chapter accepted ‘nemine discrepante’; Pedro Fernández (11 September 1505): ‘he was appointed by ordinary authority’ ‘and then the gentlemen said that his worship has seen the appointment and acquiesced’; Antonio González (20 April 1506), ‘was appointed by ordinary authority […] and asked to be given the possession’; Gerónimo de Enciso (19 July 1506): he was designated by Don Clemente López de Frías, apostolic protonotary and judicial vicar of the bishop Bernardino López de Carvajal; the chapter ratified the designation; Sancho de Antezana (24 November 1496): the gentlemen of the chapter are obedient; Juan del Muro (7 August 1498), judicial vicar; Francisco de Carvajal (19 May 1500): he obtained the half ration that the dean held, ‘auctoritas ordinaria’; Sancho de Morales (14 July 1505), ordinary authority and ratification by the chapter; García de Sigüenza (6 November 1505); Alonso Pérez de Calatayud (24 March 1504).

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

147

Table 6.4. Bishops and Relatives in the Chapter Bishop

Relatives

Relatives in bishopric

Approx. duration

Average per year

Simón Girón de Cisneros (1300–1326)a

5

0

26

0

Juan Serrano (1390–1402)

9b

0

12

0

Alonso Carrillo de Albornoz (1422–34)

1

c

1

12

0.75

Alonso Carrillo de Acuñad (1436–46)

3

3

10

0.3

Gonzalo de Santa María (1446–48)

1

e

1

2

0.5

Fernando de Luján (1449–65)

2f

2

16

0.12

Diego López de Madrid (1465–66)

4g

0

1

0

Pedro González de Mendoza (1467–95)

8

h

7

28

0.25

Bernardino López de Carvajal (1495–1511)

8i

8

18

0.5

TOTAL

41

22

123

2.42

a Ancestor of Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, future Archbishop of Toledo and cardinal. I have also included him among his family, although he is later than his bishopric, like Gonzalo Jiménez de Cisneros, the chaplain. b All nine later than him. c His nephew Alonso Carrillo de Acuña succeeded him in the bishopric. We have decided to place his family in his nephew’s square because of the proximity in time. However, they could equally have been placed together. d Named Archbishop of Toledo (1446–82). Nephew of the previous one. He named López Carrillo his vicar general in a letter of authority in which he is a witness in 1439. His relative Pedro Carrillo was Archdeacon of Almazán (he appears for the first time as witness of a provision in 1448), and another relative, Gonzalo Carrillo, is catalogued as companion of Sigüenza in Doc. 543. In 1446 he is a witness in a letter of payment. e Rodrigo de Luna was awarded a canonry by his relative, Bishop Gonzalo de Santa María, in 1448. One year later, he appears as Archbishop of Santiago. f Diego de Luján appears as a canon in a legal action in which he was the defendant in 1472. It is not certain whether he entered the chapter thanks to Bishop Fernando de Luján. Pedro López de Madrid was awarded a canonry in 1453 in which Bishop Fernando de Luján, his relative, intervened. Pedro López de Madrid was the uncle of the next bishop, Diego López de Madrid. g An intruder, Diego López de Madrid was deposed forcibly. Fernando López de Madrid (Pedro López de Madrid’s brother, a relative of Fernando de Luján), uncle or father of Diego López de Madrid. In the 1450s he acted as treasurer, canon, and archdeacon in Medina. Juan López de Madrid received stipends from Bishop Fernando de Luján in 1454. Twenty years later, he appears as a canon. His nephew, Bernardino López received his first canonry in Sigüenza in 1477 from Cardinal Mendoza. We can therefore see that Diego López de Madrid’s family were not in the chapter during his brief and conflictive bishopric. h The eight relatives of Cardinal Mendoza include Sancho de Mendoza, who appears as royal notary in 1340, and therefore the cardinal cannot have influenced in his privileged position. Instead, his identification confirms that the Mendoza family was always close to the circles of power. The other relatives and kin probably rose in their positions in the chapter thanks to their relationship with the cardinal. Thus, Diego de Mendoza appears in the database as a canon in 1489, when he abandoned his canonry in favour of Fernando González de Gracián; Juan de Medina, the cardinal’s relative, received his stipend in 1489; Martín de Algora obtained a ration thanks to the cardinal’s intervention in 1490; Fernando de Valencia, a relative, was already a canon in Sigüenza in 1479; Suero de Humaña, also a relative, was appointed canon in 1490 through the cardinal’s intervention; and Gabriel de Mendoza, a close relative, obtained a canonry in 1494 after the chapter read the pontifical bulls. i Francisco de Carvajal was appointed precentor through the direct intervention of Cardinal Bernardino López de Carvajal in 1500; Vasco de Carvajal obtained his canonry thanks to Cardinal López de Carvajal’s

Aída Portilla González

148

Table 6.5. Mendoza's Social Network: Ties of blood/Artificial Kinship Ties of blood

Artificial kinship

Diego de Mendoza (canonry)

Velasco de Barrionuevo (half ration and canonry)

Juan de Medina (ration)

Bartolomé de Medina (ration and canonry)

Fernando de Valencia (canonry)

Juan de Cuenca (ration)

Martín de Algora (ration)

Diego de Muros (head chaplain)

Suero de Humaña (canonry)

Alfonso Díaz (canonry)

Gabriel de Mendoza (canonry)

Table 6.6. Bernardino López de Carvajal's Social Network: Ties of blood/Artificial Kinship Ties of blood

Artificial kinship

Francisco de Carvajal (precentor)

Andrés de Arenas (archdeaconry)

Rodrigo de Carvajal (canonry)

Juan de Frías (canonry)

Cristóbal de Carvajal (canonry)

Clemente López de Frías (deaconry)

Juan de Carvajal (ration)

Luis López de Frías (judicial vicar)

Alonso de Carvajal (archdeaconry) Diego de Peñaranda (half ration) Hernán López de Buendía (ration) Sancho de Antezana (precentor, dean, and archdeacon) Vasco de Carvajal (canon)

intervention also in 1500; Cristóbal de Carvajal was designated canon in 1507 through the bishop and chapter; Rodrigo de Carvajal was made canon in 1505 and archdeacon in Medina in 1508, in both cases through the cardinal’s intervention; Alonso de Carvajal was made archdeacon in Sigüenza thanks to the intervention of Rome in 1504; Hernán López de Buendia was awarded a ration in 1506, in which Bernardino López de Carvajal intervened; Diego de Peñaranda received a ration through the cardinal’s intervention in 1506; Sancho de Antezana clearly enjoyed Cardinal López de Carvajal’s favours as he was awarded a half ration in Sigüenza in 1496, made precentor a year later, and dean in 1499.

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

149

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Capitulars Archive of Sigüenza [ACS] LD., Sign. 88, Cartas de ventas y posesiones Leg. 65, Testamentos Leg. 98, Beneficios Leg. 129, Litigios Chapter minutes (documents without symbols) Tomo i: 1416–1425: Lib. Reg. 1 Tomo ii: 1448–1454: Lib. Reg. 2 Tomo iii: 1474–1483: Lib. Reg. 3 Tomo iv: 1485–1486: Lib. Reg. 4 Tomo v: 1486–1495: Lib. Reg. 5 Tomo vi: 1496–1502: Lib. Reg. 6 Tomo vii: 1502–1508: Lib. Reg. 7 Tomo viii: 1508–1512: Lib. Reg. 8

Primary Sources Minguella y Arnedo, Toribio, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, 2 vols (Madrid, 1901–1913) Las Siete Partidas del Rey D. Alfonso El Sabio: Glossadas por el Sr. D. Gregorio López del Consejo Real de las India, Partida I, título XVI, ley II, (Valencia: en la imprenta de Benito Monfort, 1767)

Secondary Sources Albors y Albors, C., La Inquisición y el cardenal de España (Valencia, 1896) Añibarro Rodríguez, J., ‘Las redes portuarias en las Cuatro Villas de la Costa de la Mar durante la Baja Edad Media: avances de su estudio’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011), pp. 177–95 Asenjo González, M., and A. M. Rodriguez, eds, Oligarchy and Patronage in Late Medieval Spanish Urban Society (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009) Benítez Floriano, S., ‘D. Francisco de Carvajal y Sande, Mecenas Cacereño’, El blog del Cronista, 2017, Carocci, Sandro, Il nepotismo nel medioevo: Papi, cardinali e famiglie nobili (Rome: Viella, 1999) Carvajal de la Vega, D., ‘Redes socioeconómicas y mercaderes castellanos a fines de la Edad Media e inicios de la Moderna’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011), pp. 79–102

150

Aída Portilla González

Chacón, Alfonso, ‘Essai de liste générale des cardinaux. VI. Les cardinaux du Grand Schisme (1378–1417)’, in Annuaire Pontifical Catholique (Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, 1931), p. 156 Del Val Valdivieso, Mª I., ‘Élites urbanas en la Castilla del siglo xv (oligarquía y común)’, in Elites e redes clientelares na Idade Média, ed. by F. T. Barata (Lisboa: Universidade de Évora, 2001), pp. 71–89 De Reina, V., El sistema beneficial (Pamplona: EUNSA, 1965) Esteve Barba, F., Alfonso Carrillo de Acuña: Autor de la unidad de España (Barcelona: Ed Amaltea, 1943) Fliche, A., and V. Martín, Historia de la Iglesia, vol. xii (Valencia: EDICEP, 1976) García Oro, José, Cisneros: un cardenal reformista en el trono de España (1436–1517) (Madrid: Esfera de los Libros, 2005) Ghasarian, C., Introducçao ao Estudo do Parentesco (Lisboa: Terramar, 1999) Herlihy, D., ‘The Making of the Medieval Family: Symmetry, Structure, and Sentiment’, Journal of Family History, 8 (1983), 116–30 Huarte y Echenique, A., El Gran Cardenal de España, Don Pedro González de Mendoza (Madrid, 1912) Imizcoz, J. M., ‘Las redes sociales de las élites: Conceptos, fuentes y aplicaciones’, in Las élites en la época moderna: la monarquía española, vol. i, Nuevas perspectivas, ed. by E. Soria Emsa, J. J. Bravo Caro, and J. M. Delgado Barrado (Córdoba: Universidad de Córdoba, 2009), pp. 77–111 Justi, C., Don Pedro de Mendoza, Gran Cardenal de España (Madrid, 1913) Lampérez y Romea, V., Los Mendoza del siglo xv y el Castillo del Real de Manzanares (Madrid, 1916) Layna Serrano, F., El cardenal Mendoza como político y consejero de los Reyes Católicos (Madrid, 1968) —— , Castillos de Guadalajara: Descripción e Historia de los mismos y noticias de sus señores (Guadalajara: Aache, 1996) —— , Historia de Guadalajara y sus Mendozas en los siglos xv y xvi, vol. ii (Guadalajara: Aache, 1994) Levi, G., La herencia inmaterial (Madrid: Nerea, 1990) —— , ‘Sobre microhistoria’, in Formas de hacer historia, ed. by P. Burke (Madrid: Alianza, 1993), pp. 119–43 Liuzzo Scorpo, A., Friendship in Medieval Iberia: Historical, Legal and Literary Perspectives (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014) Lop Otí, Mª José, El Cabildo Catedralicio de Toledo en el siglo xv: Aspectos institucionales y sociológicos (Madrid: Fundación Ramón Areces, 2003) Mansilla, Demetrio, Iglesia castellano­leonesa y curia romana en tiempos del rey San Fernando (Madrid, 1945) Martín Romera, Mª A., ‘Redes medievales: oligarquías del siglo xv y análisis de redes sociales’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011), pp. 55–78 Martínez Araque, I., ‘Las diversas relaciones sociales y las estrategias familiares del artesanado valenciano en el siglo xv’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011), pp. 217–40

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile

151

Miranda, F., ‘Portugal y las redes mercantiles en la Europa Atlántica a finales de la Edad Media’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011), pp. 155–75 Mirecki, G., ‘Apuntes genealógicos y biográficos de don Alfonso Carrillo de Acuña, arzobispo de Toledo’, in Anales Toledanos, vol. xxviii (Toledo: Instituto de Estudios Toledanos, 1991), pp. 55–76 Muñoz Párraga, Mª Carmen, La catedral de Sigüenza (las fábricas romana y gótica) (Guadalajara: [n.pub.], 1987) Ortega Rico, P., ‘Financieros y redes financieras en tiempos de Juan II: posibilidades de estudio del libro de “Recepta” de 1440’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011), pp. 103–32 Padgett, J. F., and C. K. Ansell, ‘Robust Action and the Rise of the Médici, 1400–1434’, American Journal of Sociology, 98 (1993), 1259–1319 Prodi, P., Lo sviluppo dell’assolutismo, vol. i (Bologna: Ed. Patron, 1968) Quinteros Cortés, J., ‘Redes socioeconómicas al servicio del mercado negro bajomedieval: el clan rey de Murcia y los Reyes Católicos’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011), pp. 196–215 Reinhard, Wolfgang, ‘Nepotismus: Der Funtionswandel einer papstgescichtlichen Konstanten’, Zeitschrift für Kirchendgeschichte, 86 (1975), 145–85 Rius Serra, J., ‘Estudiants espanyols a Avinyo al segle xiv’, Analecta Sacra Tarraconensis, 23 (1950), 75–81 Sales i Favà, L., ‘Crédito y redes urbanas: el caso de Girona y las pequeñas ciudades de su entorno en el siglo xiv’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011), pp. 133–54 Sanz Serrano, M. J., ‘El legado del cardinal Hurtado de Mendoza a la Catedral de Sevilla’, Laboratoria del arte, 17.93 (2004), 93–116 Sigurdsson, J.  V., and T.  Smäberg, eds, Friendship and Social Networks in Scandinavia (c. 1000–1800) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013) Suárez Fernández, L., ‘Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros’, in Diccionario de Historia de España (Madrid: Revista de Occidente, 1952), i, 655–56 Villalba Ruiz de Toledo, F. J., El Cardenal Mendoza (1428–1495) (Madrid: Rialp, 1988) Vitores Casado, I., ‘Compañías vascas en torno al arrendamiento y recaudación de la renta de los diezmos de la mar de Castilla a fines de la Edad Media’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011), pp. 241–58 Yaben, H., El cardenal Mendoza: Su gobierno del señorío de Sigüenza (Madrid, 1934)

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province: Metropolitan Authority and Relations with their Suffragans Steinar Imsen

T

his article is mainly about metropolitan authority in the insular parts of the Nidaros Province (Provincia Nidrosiensis). The archbishops’ role in the appointment of suffragan bishops will be a matter of particular interest since it was crucial for the execution and maintenance of their authority as leaders of the Nidaros Church (Ecclesia Nidrosiensis). Probably most people, Norwegians included, have no idea about the former Church organization covering all Norse countries from Norway to the Irish Sea, which lasted for more than three centuries, at least in principle. At the end of the Middle Ages the insular dioceses together with the royal Norwegian dominions overseas vanished from Norwegian history, and since then Protestant and national historiography has found no place for it.1 However, the history of these suffragan dioceses and their relations with Norway, especially Nidaros (Trondheim), is important for the understanding of cultural and social development in West Scandinavia in the centuries succeeding the Viking age.

1

Imsen, Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537, pp. 23–34.

Steinar Imsen ([email protected]) is Professor Emeritus at Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 153–176 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120616 BREPOLS

Steinar Imsen

154

The Province One of the most significant events in Norwegian history during the Middle Ages was the establishment of an archbishop’s see in Nidaros in 1152 or 1153. Since 1103 the Norwegian dioceses as well as the insular bishoprics, except Man and the Suðreyjar (the Hebrides), had been part of the Church of Lund in Scania (then part of Denmark, today southern Sweden); and before that the archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen had claimed obedience from the churches of Scandinavia and the Norse world. In 1154, Pope Anastasius confirmed the authority of the new metropolitan. In the foundation bull, he states that Et ne de cætero provinciæ Norvegiæ metrpolitani possit cura deesse, commissam gubernationi tuæ urbem Thrudensem ejusdem provinciæ perpetuam metropolim ordinavit et ei Asloensem, Hammarcopiensem, Bergensem, Stawangeriensem, Insulas Orcades, Suthraie Insulas, Insulas Islandensium et Grenlandie episcopatus tamquam suæ metropoli perpetuis temporibus constituit subjacere, et earum episcopatus sicut metroplitanis suis tibi tuisqve successoribus obedire. [to avoid that the province of Norway should lack the care of a metropolitan, he [Pope Anastasius] made Trondheim the perpetual metropolis for this province, and ordained that the dioceses of Oslo, Hamar, Bergen, Stavanger, Orkney, Sodor, Iceland, and Greenland forever should obey you [the new archbishop, Jon Birgisson] and your successors as metropolitans.]2

That the Faeroes, a diocese of its own for some decades, is omitted from the papal list is probably due to an oversight.3 Nor is Shetland mentioned since that archipelago was part of the diocese of Orkney. The Norwegian historian Edvard Bull held that the ecclesiastical connection between Shetland and Orkney was rather new in the early twelfth century, and that Shetland in the eleventh century had been part of the bishopric of Bjørgvin (Bergen). Until 1170, the bishops in Western Norway had resided on Selje outside Stadt, the holy St Sunniva’s island. The Shetlanders still paid an annual due, called ‘sunnivamel’, to the Bishop of Bergen in the fourteenth century.4 However, this is pure guesswork. The Faeroes may have been part of the diocese of Bergen too, until it got its own bishop in 2

Diplomatarium Danicum, p. 211. The editors of Diplomatarium Danicum (p. 209) suggest that the Faeroes were included in Iceland in 1154, since they are not mentioned among the other dioceses of the Nidaros province until 1206, when Innocent III confirmed Anastasius’s bull (Diplomatarium Norvegicum, vii, no. 6). 4 Bull, Det norske folks liv og historie g jennom tidene, p. 134. 3

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province

155

Map 7.1. The eleven dioceses of the Nidaros province consisted of c. 1900 parish-churches in 1300, a minimum number, and forty-four monasteries. There were c. 1300 parishes in Norway, in Orkney and Shetland probably 65, in Iceland 330, in Greenland 17, in the Faeroes 50, and in the diocese of Sodor 69. Chapels are not included. There were thirty-one monasteries in Norway, ten in Iceland, two in Greenland, and one in Orkney. Note on the map’s Norwegian captions: Erkebispesete = archbishopric; bispesete = bishopric; Man og Sudrøyene = Sodor; Shetland og Orknøyene = Orkney. Map from Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537: Søkelys på Nidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie, ed. by S. Imsen (Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk 2003), p. 16).

the early twelfth century. The cathedral chapter of Bergen’s claim of the right to elect the bishops of Kirkjubøur in the thirteenth century may be indicative of the diocesan origins. Until the second half of the fifteenth century, Nidaros remained the centre of a church-province stretching from the Kola Peninsula and Greenland in the north to the Isle of Man and the River Göta in the south, at least in principle. The distances between the metropolitan see and its suffragan bishoprics overseas, especially the North Atlantic dioceses, were huge, and communications slow, not least because of the seasonal sailing pattern. The history of the Nidaros church and its province ended when in 1536 and 1537 Duke Christian of Schleswig-Holstein (later King Christian III of Denmark and Norway) abolished first the Danish and then the Norwegian Church and

Steinar Imsen

156

replaced them with his own Lutheran Church organization. By this time, Orkney and Sodor had long been part of the archbishopric of St Andrews. When it comes to the Isle of Man and the Hebrides, the breach with Nidaros was a fact already in 1349, when Pope Clement VI gave the bishops of Sodor an exemption from their obligation to visit Nidaros once during their terms of office. Sarah Thomas says that ‘surviving sources present an impression that contact (between Nidaros and Sodor) was minimal at best’ after 1320, and that the authority of the Archbishop of Trondheim from the end of the fourteenth century was ‘superseded by the centralisation of the late medieval Church’.5 Except for the 1150s, the connection between Nidaros and Sodor had been rather weak. Right up until 1210, Furness Abbey in Cumbria and the archbishops of York claimed obedience from the bishops of Sodor. From that date, however, the metropolitan authority of Nidaros over the diocese of Sodor was uncontested. In the Greenlandic bishopric of Gardar, which according to the Norwegian Church-historian Oluf Kolsrud got its first bishop in 1112 or 1113, there had not been a bishop since the beginning of the fifteenth century.6 At the end of the fifteenth century, there were probably no Norse people left in Greenland. There were five bishoprics in Norway: Oslo, Nidaros, Bergen, Stavanger, and Hamar. Hamar, in interior Eastern Norway, was brand new in 1152. We should add that except the bishopric of Orkney, and different from the Norwegian dioceses, none of the insular churches developed cathedral chapters. Nidaros was a natural choice as metropolis for the new church province, because the body of St Olav was enshrined in that city’s Christ Church. Olav was the most popular saint in Scandinavia, and his cult spread all over the Norse world. According to the German chronicler Adam of Bremen, there were already by c. 1070 substantial pilgrimages to the tomb of the saintly king, and Nidaros (Trondheim) had become a spiritual centre for all Norwegians (Nortmanni), which in Adam’s opinion included people of Norse descent west over the sea.7

Thomas, ‘The Diocese of Sodor and its Connection to Nidaros and the Curia after 1266’, p. 143. 6 Kolsrud, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og Biskoper, p. 281 and p. 284. 7 Adam von Bremen, Hamburgische Kirchengeschichte, ed. by Schmeidler, p. 267. 5

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province

157

The Foundation of Metropolitan Authority Hierarchical discipline was the binding force in the Latin Church. In 1154, Pope Anastasius had ordered the suffragans in the new church province to obey the Archbishop of Nidaros, who by then again stood under papal command. Metropolitan mandate to rule rested on papal consecration. The pallium, which the archbishop received from the pope on this occasion, symbolized metropolitan authority and dignity. Probably as early as 1169, Pope Alexander III introduced a so-called subsidium pallii to help the archbishop elect to finance his travel to Rome for consecration. All suffragans were ordered to contribute, and they still paid it in the 1450s. This contribution to the Nidaros metropolitan was unique in the Roman Church.8 Many Nidaros archbishops were papal legates, that is, nominally representatives of the pope, as well. The first one to wear the title of papal legate was Øystein Erlendsson (1161–88). In other words, consecration was a crucial element in the hierarchical order, and the archbishop’s right to ordain his suffragans was the foundation upon which his metropolitan authority, at least nominally, rested. The transfer of the two Icelandic dioceses from the obedience of Lund to that of Nidaros, 1152/53, was unproblematic. When the first vacancies occurred in Hólar and Skálholt after the erection of the new church province, the bishops elect went to Trondheim for consecration.9 However, all Icelandic bishops until 1238 were native Icelanders who belonged to or were dependant on the ruling class of chiefs, the so-called goðar (pl.). Except Þorlákur Þórhallson in Skálholt (1178–93) and Guðmundur Arason in Hólar (1203–37), the Icelandic bishops were rather unwilling to support the archbishop’s endeavours for reform. Even Þorlákur had to give in when in 1188 Archbishop Øystein died. The Icelandic Church had, since its inception in c. 1000, been part of the chieftains’ power base. Some of them had combined the positions of goði (sing.) and priest, or even bishop, or they had placed relatives and loyal friends in ecclesiastical offices. The goðar also owned churches and church-land. In other words, the church in Iceland was a typical proprietorial church that had been common in Norway and Orkney-Shetland as well prior to 1152/53. Barbara Crawford has shown that the Johnsen, ‘Subsidium pallii’, cols 410–19. The bishops of Skálholt were elected by the Alþingi (the General Assembly of Iceland) while the bishops of Hólar probably were elected by a mixed lay and clerical assembly from the northern quarter of Iceland. Archbishop Absalon in Lund consecrated Páll Jónsson in Skálholt in 1195 during Archbishop Eirik Ivarsson’s exile. Kolsrud, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og Biskoper, pp. 261–634, pp. 271f. 8 9

Steinar Imsen

158

legal status of St Magnus Cathedral in the late fifteenth century is reminiscent of the old proprietorial church system in the earldom.10 The year 1238 marks a shift. From then until the end of the fourteenth century, the archbishops controlled all appointments of bishops in Iceland. The shift was partly due to an extraordinary situation: both Icelandic bishoprics were vacant in 1237, which gave Archbishop Sigurd in Nidaros an opportunity to interfere. He rejected the two Icelandic bishops elect — both closely connected to the goðar — and appointed two Norwegians instead. According to Heidi Anett Beistad, Sigurd considered ‘that the time was ripe to act upon the ideals of the universal church and to take on the Icelandic goðachurch’.11 The reform process, which was the main concern of the archbishops, had, in spite of a positive start in Iceland during Øystein Erlendsson’s archiepiscopacy, been brought to a halt when in 1181 Øystein was forced into exile in England. Moreover, the political situation in Norway prevented the archbishops from interfering in Iceland until around 1240, when archbishop and king combined forces to bring the Icelanders under royal and archiepiscopal control. Moreover, since 1236 Iceland had been in turmoil, which created difficulties for the two Norwegian bishops of Skálholt and Hólar in carrying out the reform project. There has been speculation about whether King Håkon Håkonsson was involved in Archbishop Sigurd’s coup in 1238. He was probably not, at least not directly, but he was certainly positive about Sigurd’s actions, which could have helped him make Iceland a royal Norwegian skattland (tributary country). Some few years later, Håkon launched his own campaign to make Iceland part of his realm. He even obtained papal support when he addressed the Icelanders in 1247. According to Sturla Þorðarson, who wrote Håkon’s saga, Cardinal William of Sabina advised the king in this matter and said that it was ‘improper that a country did not serve a king like all other countries in the world’.12 In supporting the reform project in Iceland, the king probably expected some political gain: a royal takeover might have been eased by the weakening of the chieftains’ position. In contrast to the situation at the beginning of the twelfth century, when the Archbishop of York contested the appointment of William (I) the Old as Bishop of Orkney and appointed his own nominee, the transfer of Orkney from 10

Crawford, ‘St. Magnus Cathedral’. Beistad, ‘Election and Rejection’, p. 226. 12 ‘Þá var ok sú skipan ger til Íslands með ráði kardinála at sú þjóð er þar byggði þjónaði til Hákonar konungs, þvi at hann kallaði þat ósannligt at land þat þjónaði eigi undir einhvern konung sem öll önnur í veröldinni’. Hákonar saga, ii, ed. by Sverrir Jakobsson and Þorleifur Hauksson, p. 136. 11

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province

159

the obedience of Lund to that of Nidaros was unproblematic. According to Oluf Kolsrud, King Sigurd Magnusson appointed William the Old as Bishop of Orkney in 1112.13 True enough, we do not know anything about William’s consecration, but it probably happened in Lund. Likewise we must assume that Bishop William II received his consecration in Nidaros in 1168, and when Orkneyinga saga tells that his successor, the famous Bjarne Kolbeinsson, was consecrated, that probably happened in Nidaros or by the Archbishop of Nidaros in 1188. Until 1223, all the Orkney bishops were close to the earls. Bjarne Kolbeinsson belonged to the local aristocracy, and he may have been a relative of the earl. In 1195, Bjarne followed Earl Harald Maddadson to Norway to help him in the difficult negotiations with King Sverre after the defeat of the so-called ‘eyarskjeggjar’ at the battle of Florvåg in 1194. Fifteen years later Bjarne once again helped Harald’s two sons in their conflict with King Inge when they sent him to Norway to negotiate with Norwegian authorities, and finally, in 1223, he visited Bergen together with Earl Jon Haraldsson, to attend a national meeting. Bjarne Kolbeinsson died during his last stay in Norway. Jofrey, a præpositus (ON prófastr) in Tønsberg, succeeded him. His nationality is uncertain; his name, however, indicates that he might have been a Scot or an Englishman. According to Barbara Crawford, the king appointed him, which is not likely. Probably the king promoted his candidacy; royal promotion of bishops happened many times during King Håkon IV Håkonsson’s reign (1217–63). Archbishop Guttorm certainly consecrated Jofrey, and relations to the metropolitan see now became closer. The establishment of a cathedral chapter in Kirkwall also strengthened the local church. The chapter is mentioned only in a document dated 1247, but was certainly older, since Heinrek, who was postulated as bishop by the chapter that year, had been a canon in Kirkwall for some years.14 Barbara Crawford holds that the thirteenth century was a period when the bishopric was firmly tied into the Norwegian Church structure.15 In relation to the earls as well, the Orkney Church appears as a more independent institution than earlier. According to Per Sveaas Andersen, prebends 13

Kolsrud, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og Biskoper, p.  297. According to Barbara Crawford, William the Old, the first ‘firmly resident’ bishop in Orkney and a Norwegian nominee, was possibly appointed by King Magnus Olavsson (not Haraldsson) ‘barfót’ in 1102. However, this is not likely since William then would have stayed sixty-six years in office. William was certainly old, but not that old. Crawford, ‘The Bishopric of Orkney’, pp. 144f. 14 Kolsrud, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og Biskoper, p.  298. Heinrek received his consecration in Viken (the Oslo fiord area) in the autumn of 1248 while Archbishop Sigurd stayed there together with King Håkon. 15 Crawford, ‘The Bishopric of Orkney’, p. 148.

Steinar Imsen

160

were a constituent element of the cathedral’s economy, at the latest in 1327–28, but probably much earlier. A so-called appropriation-system, imported from Scotland, made the canonries wealthy, Andersen says. He refers to it as a ‘feudalization’ of the Orcadian Church, which is a rather unclear statement. Moreover, this appropriation-system corresponds to the annexation of rich parishes in the countryside to the cathedral chapters in Norway in the second half of the thirteenth century, so-called praebendae parochiales.16 We do not know the exact number of prebends at the chapter in Kirkwall; Andersen suggests as many as fourteen, Crawford twelve.17 In 1309, an archdeaconry of Orkney was established, which probably meant a further strengthening of the chapter, but the Archdeacon of Shetland (from 1215) was still senior officer of the chapter. That Shetland, which Harald Maddadson had forfeited in 1195, should have remained as part of the diocese of Orkney may have helped strengthen the position of the Church in Orkney as well. After the final defeat of Harald Maddadson’s sons in 1210, who had tried to take back Shetland, the Orkney Church was the only common institution for the Norse part of the old earldom. As already mentioned, the Archdeacon of Shetland was the most prominent member of the cathedral chapter: some of them even attained the position of bishops in Kirkwall, and one, Gilbert, was appointed bishop in Hamar in Eastern Norway. He had been a royal chaplain. Jofrey seems to have been the one and only ‘Norwegian’ bishop in Orkney after 1223. There has been a belief among historians that the chapter and the bishops in Kirkwall functioned as a kind of bridgehead for Scottish influence in the Northern Isles. I will not deny the fact that we find many Scots among the canons in Orkney; even some of the bishops were Scots by birth. However, like Brian Smith, I think there is no good reason to stress such a nationalistic approach, which tends to be a bit anachronistic.18 The Scots who moved to Orkney and Shetland to start an ecclesiastical career became native Orcadians and Shetlanders as time went by, and may have looked upon themselves as native islanders as well. This is well documented, for instance in a letter from 1369 where a representative group of Orcadians and Shetlanders, many of whom bear Scottish names, refer to themselves as native islanders.19 Likewise, documents 16

Hamre, ‘Kannikgjeld’, cols 227–30. Andersen, ‘The Orkney Church in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, pp. 11–15; Crawford, ‘The Bishopric of Orkney’, p. 148. 18 Smith, ‘The Nidaros Church and “Norgesveldet”’. 19 Diplomatarium Norvegicum, i, no. 404. 17

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province

161

from the early fifteenth century tell us that Orcadians with Scottish ancestry regarded incoming Scots as foreigners.20 Until the end of the fourteenth century, almost all bishops in Orkney had been canons in Kirkwall and elected by the chapter. The only exception might have been Dolgfinn, whom Bishop Andres of Oslo elected and consecrated in 1286, according to the Icelandic annals. However, Peter Andreas Munch did not believe in this election, and he was probably right.21 On the other hand, it was natural that a local Norwegian bishop should have consecrated the Orkney bishop elect at a time when the metropolitan see in Nidaros was vacant. The last Orkney bishop before the Scottish takeover of the isles in 1468–69, William Tulloch, a Scot, had also been a canon in Kirkwall. The chapter may still have had a say in the appointment of bishops in the fifteenth century, even though the pope more or less took over the role of the metropolitan as consecrator and provided candidates, frequently put forward by the Scandinavian union-kings, to the episcopal seat. We should add that even though the Avignonese popes during the Schism of 1378–1417 continued to provide bishops to Orkney, none of them took up residence in Kirkwall. Queen Margrete and King Erik succeeded in guarding the Orkney Church from Avignon’s attempt to annex its obedience.22 Heinrek, who succeeded Jofrey in 1248 and who had been a canon in Kirkwall, stayed at King Håkon’s side during the war against Scotland in 1263 together with Bishop Gilbert of Hamar. Gilbert was probably a relative of Earl Magnus Gilbertsson. ‘These two prelates no doubt accompanied the expedition for their usefulness in any negotiations which might ensue between Scotland and Norway’, Barbara Crawford says.23 Altogether the bishops of Orkney as well as the Archdeacons of Shetland were often sent on missions abroad by the king, and then most often to the royal courts of Scotland and England. Being Church leaders of a border diocese meant that the bishops of Orkney had an exposed political position. They received and accounted for the annual fee that the Kings of Scotland, agreed in the Treaty of Perth of 1266, were obliged to render in return for the Kingdom of Man and the Isles. One hundred and sixty years later, the treaty was renewed, and the bishops in Kirkwall went on collecting ‘the Annual’. Bishop Thomas Tulloch (1418–61) took part in the negotiations 20

Diplomatarium Norvegicum, ii, no. 691. Munch, Det norske Folks Historie, p. 60 n. 1. 22 Haug, ‘The Nidaros Church as a Political Actor in the Norwegian Commonwealth’, p. 126. 23 Crawford, ‘The Bishopric of Orkney’, p. 148. 21

Steinar Imsen

162

with the Scots in Bergen, as an ex officio member of the Norwegian Council of the Realm. His successor as Bishop of Orkney, William Tulloch (1461–77) played a similar role in the negotiations between the Kings of Norway and Scotland, which in 1468 led to the marriage-treaty between the two kingdoms and the pledging of the Northern Isles. For a short while after the death of Earl Henry Sinclair II, Thomas Tulloch, in the early 1420s, was the king’s governor of Orkney as well, a role he shared with some of his episcopal colleagues in Iceland and Greenland. Even though the bishops of Orkney most of the time proved to be loyal servants of archbishop and king, the relationship was not always unproblematic and harmonious. The reign of Håkon VI Magnusson (1355–80) was a period of conflict between the bishop, William IV, and the king.24 However, Johannes, a rector from Fetlar in Shetland, who was nominated by the chapter and provided to the episcopal see by the Roman pope after Bishop William’s death, would become a faithful servant of Queen Margaret. According to Troels Dahlrup, Johannes soon after his appointment went to Copenhagen, and in 1389, he was in the diocese of Cammin in Pomerania. Dahlrup suggests that he was negotiating on behalf of Queen Margaret to make Bugislav, son of the Duke of Pomerania and the daughter of Margaret’s sister, King of Norway. At a meeting in Helsingborg later that year the Norwegian Council of the Realm accepted Bugislav, now named Erik, as hereditary King of Norway. From there he travelled to Trondheim for his formal acclamation as hereditary king. Johannes never returned to Orkney, and he stayed as a suffragan bishop in Cammin for the rest of his life.25 When it comes to Sodor, the role of the archbishops in the process of appointment seems more nominal than real, and archiepiscopal consecrations of bishops to the Hebrides and Man mostly happened during the reign of Håkon Håkonsson and Magnus Håkonsson. There might have been a couple of ordinations by the Norwegian metropolitan in the 1320s, but this is very uncertain. The only Norwegian to become a Bishop of Sodor, Ragnvald, received consecration from Cardinal Nicolaus Brekespeare at the same meeting which established Nidaros as a metropolis of its own. The period from 1152 to c. 1350, then, appears as a Norse interlude in the ecclesiastical history of Man and the Hebrides. Thereafter the Curia took over. Unlike the bishopric of Orkney, the church of Man and the Hebrides followed their patron, the King of Scots, into 24 25

William was killed in 1382 or 1383. Grohse, ‘Defending Country and Realm’, p. 170. Dahlrup, ‘Orkney Bishops and Suffragans in the Scandinavian-Baltic Area’, pp. 42–46.

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province

163

the obedience of Avignon after 1378, which widened the gap between Nidaros and Sodor.26 The Faeroes too were firmly under the control of Nidaros after 1152/53. All ordinations but one were at the metropolitan see. However, there is a difference between the Faeroes and the other insular bishoprics, since the bishop and chapter in Bergen throughout the thirteenth century elected bishops to Kirkjubøur. The Nidaros chapter opposed this practice and claimed to have the sole right to elect bishops to all dioceses overseas without a cathedral chapter of their own. The conflict ended when in the settlement of Tautra in 1297 the claims of Nidaros were accepted.27 There were also close contacts between the bishop’s see in Bergen and Gardar. In the couple of decades around 1350, for instance, the canon Ivar Bårdsson in Bergen stayed at Gardar to take care of the bishopric during the bishop’s absence. Bishop Håkon of Bergen (1332–42) may have commissioned Ivar to administer the bishopric in the bishop’s absence; at least he equipped him with a passport. However, nobody questioned the metropolitan’s right to elect and consecrate bishops of Gardar. Like the situation in the other insular bishoprics, the Curia took over the right to appoint and consecrate bishops in Greenland and the Faeroes in the second half of the fourteenth century. However, in those cases there were no threats to Roman obedience during the Schism. There were no resident bishops in Greenland in the fifteenth century.28 Like the bishops of Orkney, the bishops in the Faeroes, Greenland, and Iceland rendered important services to the king as governors, tax collectors, and as councillors in matters of legislation. Bishop Erlend in Kirkjubøur, for instance, was in 1298, together with Sigurd, the royal judge of Shetland, appointed by Duke Håkon Magnusson in Oslo to help him amend parts of the law-code.29 Seemingly, the Archbishop of Nidaros was uncontested consecrator of his suffragan bishops from the start, or at the latest when subordinated dioceses became vacant after 1152/53. Sodor was the only exception, in spite of the positive start. The ascendancy of a cathedral chapter in Orkney in the first half of the thirteenth century indicates that the local clergy had gained control over the initial step of the appointment process, which they kept for the next centuries. As to the nomination of bishops of Sodor, this is a complicated matter, into which I do not dare to delve. 26 27 28 29

Woolf, ‘The Diocese of Sudreyar’, pp. 178–81. Hamre, ‘Striden mellom erkebiskop Jørund og domkapitlet i Nidaros’, pp. 208f. Kolsrud, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og Biskoper, pp. 280–92. Norges gamle love, iii, 33–39.

Steinar Imsen

164

In some respects, metropolitan authority to control appointments and consecrate bishops to the insular dioceses was dependant on royal backing, though not direct royal involvement. The right balance between royal power and metropolitan authority was all the time a crucial question. In 1277, King Magnus Håkonsson the Lawmender and Archbishop Jon the Red reached a mutual understanding of the problem. Their settlement at Tønsberg that year, the so-called Sættargerð in Old Norse or Compositio in Latin (§ 4), states that neither royal nor princely power should have a say, nor should any secular authority intervene in the election of bishops or abbots in the Nidaros province. However, before consecration, the electors should inform the king about the bishop elect.30 Until the second half of the fourteenth century, the kings mostly respected this rule. After that much changed with regard to the appointment system, and that signalled a dissolution of the original Nidaros province. The papal takeover of the appointment system, often in cooperation with the Scandinavian unionkings, proved a heavy blow to metropolitan authority. In the end, it paved the way for the transfer of the Norse-British dioceses into the kingdoms of England and Scotland, and the new archbishopric of St Andrews. The reconstruction of metropolitan authority and the Nidaros province when in 1428 Aslak Bolt entered office started with a renewal of the archbishop’s role in the appointment-system. In 1436 Aslak obtained a resolution from the Council of Basle that the archbishop, together with the cathedral chapter of Nidaros, should have the right to appoint and consecrate bishops in all insular churches.31 Aslak and his successors as Norwegian archbishops succeeded to some degree in restoring metropolitan control over the appointment of bishops in Iceland and the Faeroes.32 However, in a different way from the high Middle Ages, local institutions and natives from the 1460s onwards played a more central part in the appointment process in Iceland than it had done in the century after 1238, and at the end of the period the king outmanoeuvred the archbishop when it came to appointing bishops in the Faeroes. The 1436 resolution, however, probably had no effect at all with regard to Orkney and Sodor.

30

Norske middelalderdokumenter, ed. by Bagge, Smedsdal, and Helle, pp. 142f. Norges gamle love (2nd ser.), i, 537–39. 32 Haug, ‘The Council of Basle, the Rise against King Erik of Pomerania and the Last Provincial Statute of Norway’. 31

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province

165

The Inner Circle, Identities, and Networks, c. 1230–1370 From the early thirteenth century until the middle of the fourteenth, the archbishops’ right to ordain insular suffragans was uncontested. Exceptions occur, but they were occasional, for instance when in 1152 and 1247, the cardinals Nicolaus Brekespeare and William of Sabina visited Norway. During their stay in Nidaros and Bergen, they consecrated bishops to Sodor and Hólar. It also happened, if the archbishop was ill or the metropolitan see was vacant, that another Norwegian bishop had to take on the consecration. However, the right to ordain was one thing; quite another matter was the authority or power to control the candidature. Table 7.1. Appointments of bishops to Hólar, Skálholt, Kirkjubøur, and Gardar c. 1230–137033 Archbishop

Suffragans

Nationality

Career

Sigurd Eindrideson tafse 1231–52

3 Kirkjubøur, 2 Hólar, 1 Skálholt, 2 Gardar. Elect. and ordinat. in Norway

Norwegians

2 canons, 2 monks, 1 abbot

Einar Gunnarson smjorbak 1255–63

1 Kirkjubøur, 1 Hólar. Elect. and ordinat. in Norway

1 Norwegian, 1 Icelander (Hólar)

1 canon, 1 abbot

Håkon 1267

1 Hólar. Elect. and ordinat. in Norway

Icelander

Local priest

Jon raude 1268–82

1 Kirkjubøur, 1 Skálholt. Elect. and ordinat. in Norway

1 Icelander, 1 Norwegian

1 canon, 1 priest and administrator of the bishop’s see (Hólar)

Jørund 1288–1309

1 Gardar, 1 Skálholt, 1 1 Icelander, 2 Kirkjubøur. Elect. and Norwegians ordinat. in Norway.

1 administrator of the bishop’s see (Skálholt), 1 local priest (Borgund)

Eilif Arneson korte 1311–32

3 Hólar, 1 Gardar, 2 Skálholt, 2 Kirkjubøur. Elect. and ordinat. in Norway

2 canons, 2 monks, 1 abbot

33

6 Norwegians, 2 Icelanders

This table is based upon Kolsrud, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og Biskoper. In ten out of these thirty-five cases, we have no information about the bishops’ career.

Steinar Imsen

166

Table 7.1. Contd. Archbishop

Suffragans

Nationality

Career

Pål Bårdsson 1333–46 2 Skálholt, 1 Gardar, 1 4 Norwegians, 1 Hólar, 1 Kirkjubøur. 4 Icelander elect. and 5 ordinat. in Norway, 1 elect. at the General Assembly in Iceland

1 abbot, 1 monk, 1 canon

Pål Bårdsson 1333–46 2 Skálholt, 1 Gardar, 1 4 Norwegians, 1 Hólar, 1 Kirkjubøur. 4 Icelander elect. and 5 ordinat. in Norway, 1 elect. at the General Assembly in Iceland

1 abbot, 1 monk, 1 canon

A core of Norse dioceses in the North Atlantic stand out among the other insular bishoprics because the Archbishop of Nidaros in the first half of the thirteenth century obtained full control over the process of episcopal appointment, from election to ordination. When discussing the relations between the metropolitan and his insular suffragans I therefore will concentrate on these bishoprics, focusing primarily on the Icelandic dioceses Skálholt and Hólar, since Icelandic sources are manifold and extensive while documentary evidence from Greenland and the Faeroe Islands is rather meagre. Norwegians dominate in this long list of insular suffragans. As to the few Icelanders, they were close to ecclesiastical authorities in Norway or they belonged to a clerical milieu in Iceland closely tied to Norway and engaged in the reform policy of the archbishops. The Icelander Árni Þorláksson for instance (1269–98) had been an apprentice and protégé of Brandr Jónsson, abbot of the monastery of Þykkvabær. When in 1262, the archbishop and the canons of the cathedral chapter of Nidaros elected Brandr as Bishop of Hólar, Árni accompanied his mentor to Nidaros, where he met King Magnus. The relation between the young king and the young Icelander would become a lifelong friendship. Back in Iceland (1264) Árni was consecrated priest by Sigvart Þettmarsson (1238–68), the very first Norwegian bishop in Skálholt, and when Brandr died, Sigvart asked Árni to administer the episcopal see of Hólar during the vacancy. Another Icelander, Jörundr Þorsteinsson, succeeded Brandr as Bishop of Hólar, and when Sigvart died in 1268, Jörundr and the best men of the bishopric sent Árni to Nidaros with a letter of recommendation. They wished to have one of their own as Bishop of Skálholt. However, Archbishop Jon preferred the Norwegian Þorleifr, a canon from the cathedral chapter of Nidaros, who died soon after the election. Since Árni

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province

167

was next in line, he was elected, confirmed, and consecrated Bishop of Skálholt. His good relations to both king and archbishop were favourable for his reform work. After King Magnus’s death in 1280, Árni joined forces with Archbishop Jon in his fight against the regency of the minor King Eirik, who wanted to reverse the settlement between archbishop and king from 1277. However, when the king came of age, the situation improved, and the year before Árni died, he succeeded in obtaining control over the ‘staðir’ in his bishopric, at least in principal. Staðamál, that is, the process of expropriating the bigger churches and their land (staðir), is one of the main issues in Icelandic historiography. In the Settlement of Avaldsnes 1297, King Eirik announced that the bishop should rule over the staðir, while laymen should rule over the farmers’ churches. Archbishop Jørund, Bishop Árni, and King Eirik sealed the document. Árni Helgason (1304–20), Árni Þorláksson’s nephew, succeeded his uncle who died in 1298, but he had to wait in five years for his ordination because of a long-lasting conflict between Archbishop Jørund (1288–1309) and the cathedral chapter. Árni Helgason had been administrator of Skálholt during Árni Þorláksson’s long stays in Norway, and like his uncle, he also spent much time at the metropolitan see. Árni Helgason too was favoured with good relations to the Church leadership in Norway, and he succeeded in implementing the Settlement of Avaldsnes, which Árni Þorláksson did not achieve before he died in Bergen in 1298.34 The proprietorial church-system almost vanished in Skálholt during Árni Helgason’s tenure. The metropolitan see was not an administrative centre only; it was also a centre of culture and learning, and not least, a place to make contacts, which might be beneficial for an ecclesiastical career. Several Icelanders travelled to Nidaros to qualify for offices and obtain benefices; many of them also served as local vicars or took on some other ecclesiastical business in Norway before returning home. The case of Bishop Laurentius Kálfsson of Hólar (1324–31) may be typical. According to his saga, Laurentius studied canon law in Nidaros and lent the archbishop a hand, which was not especially advantageous with regard to his career. Back in Iceland, he joined the Benedictine convent at Þingeyrar. When in 1323 he heard that the archbishop and the cathedral chapter in Nidaros had elected him Bishop of Hólar he was very surprised and exclaimed, ‘I will not make a fool of myself. I have no expectations that the canons in Nidaros will give me any position of authority, since everybody knows that they rather have worked against me than promoted my professional status and position’.35 34 35

Magnús Stefánsson, Staðir og staðamál, p. 46; cf. Helgi Þorláksson, ‘Succumbing Secular Chiefs’. ‘Gjör mér engan dáruskap. Þat þykki mér likara at svá fremi hafi þeir kórsbrœðr í Nóregi

168

Steinar Imsen

As a young priest and student in Nidaros Laurentius had supported Archbishop Jørund in his prolonged conflict with the cathedral chapter. The conflict culminated when Jørund excommunicated the leading men of the chapter, among whom was Eilif Arneson, who became the next Archbishop in Nidaros (1311–32). Laurentius had the delicate task of publishing Jørund’s letter of excommunication, which made him persona non grata among the canons. Nevertheless, Eilif some ten years later elected him Bishop of Hólar; Bishop Audfinn in Bergen and Bishop William in Kirkwall attended his ordination on 24 June 1324.36 Laurentius proved to be a loyal and dedicated suffragan for Archbishop Eilif. Many Norwegian overseas bishops came from the clerical milieu in Nidaros. They had been canons at the cathedral chapter, and some had served as official principals at the archiepiscopal court, been schoolmasters, etc. A lot of them had been members of the Benedictine convent at Nidarholm or the Augustinian convent at Helgeseter right outside the city. The convent at Helgeseter, which Archbishop Øystein Erlendsson established, may have served as a kind of protoor parallel chapter before a real secular cathedral chapter came into being in the thirteenth century. ‘Mensa communis’ for the cathedral canons in Nidaros did not exist until 1252.37 Some of the Norwegian-born suffragans, such as Audun Þorbergsson in Hólar (1313–22), had also combined service at the cathedral with service for the king. Audun had been Håkon V’s treasurer in Trøndelag and was highly appreciated by the king. Around 1300 good relations between king and archbishop had resumed, not least because Archbishop Jørund needed royal protection in his conflict with the cathedral chapter. King Håkon in 1297 even made Jørund his earl. However, the metropolitan’s relations with the king do not matter in our context. There is no evidence that the king intervened in the appointments of insular bishops between 1280 and 1380. Clergy from the countryside occur among the insular bishops elect as well, as for instance Lodin to Kirkjubøur (1308–16). He had been a priest at St Peter’s church in Borgund in Sunnmøre, which until 1622 was part of the archdiocese. However, Lodin never obtained consecration, because Archbishop Jørund died soon after the election. When the cathedral chapter in Nidaros ordered the Bishop of Stavanger to consecrate him, Bishop Arne in Bergen intervened and sent a letter of protest to the Curia. So far, we can conclude that many of the candidates to this core of insular bishoprics were men well known to the archbishops, and men they could trust. mik undir brotit af stéttum, sem mörgum er kunnigt, at enga vænting hefi ek til þess at þeir munu mér vold skipa.’ Biskopa Sögur, ed. by Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, p. 351. 36 Biskopa Sögur, ed. by Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, p. 366. 37 Hamre, ‘Domkapitel (Norge)’, cols 195f.

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province

169

Next to Nidaros, canons and monks from the bishopric of Bergen were preferred as insular suffragans. Some of them had belonged to Benedictine convents like Selja at Stadt in the northern part of the diocese, or Munkeliv in Bergen. The Augustinian brothers at Jonskirken in Bergen were popular candidates as well. Like Helgeseter in Nidaros, Jonskirken had been a sort of proto- or parallel chapter in Bergen before a secular chapter came into being. There is one Dominican among the bishops elect from Bergen, namely Jon Halldorsson, Bishop of Skálholt (1322–39). He had studied canon law in Paris and Bologna. Like many of his Icelandic colleagues, he died in Norway. The cathedral chapter in Bergen too furnished insular dioceses with bishops. As already mentioned, Kirkjubøur was a favourite among the Bergen clergy. In 1246 Peter, Bishop Arne’s chaplain, was ordained Bishop of Kirkjubøur, and when in 1256 Arne died Pope Alexander at the request of the cathedral chapter translated him to Bergen. The conflict between Nidaros and Bergen over the right to elect bishops to Kirkjubøur does not seem to have influenced relations between the Faeroese bishops and their metropolitan. Skálholt too was popular among Bergen clerics. Finally, two bishops, to Gardar and Hólar respectively, had been canons at the cathedral chapter in Stavanger. Even though documentary evidence from the Faeroes and Greenland is extremely fragmentary, we may, from what we know about the ethnic background of the suffragans and their election, assume that relations with the metropolitans and the clerical milieu in Norway were close. Many of them remained in Norway for many years; some of the Gardar bishops never visited their bishopric but stayed in Nidaros where they assisted the archbishop for instance in the visitation of his huge diocese. We may assume that bishops from Norway did not leave their ethnic identity behind when moving to Iceland. Icelanders were very conscious with regard to ethnicity, and they constantly stress their native identity. Norwegians were foreigners, often named ‘austmenn’ (men from the east). Nevertheless, Norwegians had to adjust to Icelandic culture and society, and we cannot rule out that a common clerical identity evolved in the Norse lands during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The Icelandic bishops of native stock too belonged to and were dependant on a common professional and social network centred on Nidaros and the metropolitan see. On the other hand, the Icelanders had divided loyalties, not least because of kinship, which are being illustrated in the bishops’ sagas, for instance in the case of Árni Þorláksson.38 38

Beistad, ‘An Almost Fanatical Devotion to the Pope?’, pp. 124f.

Steinar Imsen

170

In her doctoral dissertation, Erika Sigurdson argues convincingly for the development of a clerical elite in Iceland after 1297 with the bishops, the official principals, the episcopal ‘ráðsmenn’ (managers), and the priests who were entrusted with the richest churches at the top. A clerical elite culture evolved, which Sigurdson characterizes as ‘a complex amalgam of learned, ecclesiastical culture and long-standing Icelandic customs, adapted to suit this new clerical milieu’.39 In this process the interplay between the Icelandic bishops and the Church leadership in Nidaros was crucial. The Settlement at Avaldsnes of 1297 caused the introduction of a benefice system in the Icelandic Church, which made the clergy independent from the traditional elite of chieftains. We should add that the archbishop in Nidaros acquired some of the richest staðir in Iceland, which they granted to deserving members of the Icelandic clergy. Magnús Stefánsson refers to these staðir as archiepiscopal benefices.40 According to Erika Sigurdson, this new clerical elite with strong ties to Nidaros merged with the new Icelandic elite of royal servants in the fourteenth century. Compared to the North Atlantic suffragans, the bishops from the Northern Isles and the Hebrides seldom visited Norway after c. 1250. However, we should have in mind that evidence is almost lacking. As far as we know, none of the bishops from Orkney and Sodor studied in Nidaros, and except the senior præpositus in Tønsberg, Jofrey, none of them had an occupational background from Norway. After the middle of the thirteenth century, there were no connections between the bishops in the British dioceses and the network of North Atlantic bishops. At the turn of the thirteenth century, the bishops at Kirkwall did not belong to the inner circle of Norse bishops, and the distance to Nidaros and their colleagues in Iceland, the Faroes, and Norway grew larger throughout the late Middle Ages.

The End of the Story Ecclesiastical reform was a major concern for the archbishop. His role in the implementation of reform in the insular bishoprics was central with regard to how metropolitan authority functioned. Øystein Erlendsson made a fresh start as Archbishop of Nidaros, not only in Norway, but in Iceland as well, where in the 1170s he launched a campaign to implement ecclesiastical reform. In the beginning, Øystein’s campaign succeeded, not least, as already mentioned, because of support from the bishop elect of Skálholt, Þórlakur Þórhallson. 39 40

Sigurdson, ‘The Church in Fourteenth-Century Iceland’, p. 203. Magnús Stefánsson, Staðir og staðamál.

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province

171

However, both archbishop and bishop met with considerable resistance from the leading men of the country, and after 1181, when Øystein went into exile in England, the Bishop of Skálholt had to give up the project of ecclesiastical reform. The case of Iceland tells us that the archbishop alone did not have means to overcome local structures of power as long as the local elite were able to unite in protecting their interest in upholding the traditional ecclesiastical order. The shift when Archbishop Sigurd turned away the two Icelandic bishops elect, in 1238, meant a new start for ecclesiastical reform. However, it was not until the reign of King Magnus Håkonsson (1263–80) and the archiepiscopacy of Jon the Red (1268–82) that reform took off. As already mentioned, the Bishop of Skálholt, Árni Þorláksson, was the key figure in the process. He always turned to his superior in Nidaros for advice. Archbishop Jon equipped him with books about canon law, and Árni’s own Christian law leaned heavily on Jon’s Christian law for the bishopric of Nidaros.41 Árni succeeded in having his Christian law accepted by the Alþingi (the General Assembly of Iceland) in 1275.42 The final breakthrough for an independent Church in Iceland happened in the generation after the reign of Håkon V (1299–1319). Not only did the Church leaders obtain control over the farmer’s churches, but in 1354, King Magnus Eriksson (1319–74) also consented to the implementation of Árni Þorláksson’s church law in the bishopric of Hólar.43 We should notice that the Old Norse translations of the 1277 settlement between King Magnus and Archbishop Jon are only found in Icelandic manuscripts, the oldest of them in the so-called Codex Scardensis (1363). When the reform process started anew at the end of Håkon V’s reign, the abovementioned Audun Torbergsson, a Norwegian who in 1313 became bishop at Hólar, was a key figure. According to Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, Audun’s ‘goal was to centralize the administration of the diocese and to strengthen the bishop’s prestige, economy and authority. An important step in this process was that he in 1318, as the first bishop in Iceland, collected máldagar (cartularies) for individual churches in Holar see in one máldagar-collection, called Auðunarmáldagar’.44 In general, Sigurðsson concludes, the fourteenth century witnessed a centralization of episcopal authority and power in Iceland. What we can learn from the protracted reform process in Iceland is that it required an independent and ardent local bishop to lead the groundwork. He 41

Vadum, ‘Use of Canonistic Texts in Medieval Iceland’. Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, ‘Island og Nidaros’, pp. 127–33. 43 Helgi Þorláksson, ‘Succumbing Secular Chiefs’. 44 Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, ‘The Organisation of Hólar Bishopric according to Auðunarmáldagar’, p. 243. 42

Steinar Imsen

172

again was dependent on support from the outside, from the lord of the land (the king) and his ecclesiastic superior (the archbishop). Metropolitan authority was dependent on political stability and harmonious relations with secular authorities. We should add that ecclesiastical reform needed time to overcome old and deep-seated social, mental, and material structures. Probably the Icelanders were still not ready for reform when in the 1170s Archbishop Øystein launched his campaign in Iceland. Even though the material resources of the Church, at least in Norway proper, were bigger than those of the Crown, the Church leadership did not have the power or force to carry through its plans. Inside the Church metropolitan authority rested on a mutual understanding among the clergy as to their social mission: what we might label hierarchical loyalty. The archbishop could convey his will to the suffragans and other ecclesiastical dignitaries in many ways. He could assemble them at provincial synods, which did not happen very often. According to Knut Helle, bishops from outside Norway were seldom present at important meetings in Norway. The combined coronation and provincial synod in Bergen in 1280 was an exception, since as many as four insular bishops met, having received summonses two ‘winters’ in advance.45 The four bishops were Jörundr from Hólar, Erlend from the Faeroes, Árni from Skálholt, and Mark from Sodor, but Jörundr, Erlend, and Árni only issued the provincial statute together with the Norwegian bishops. To the provincial synods from 1290 to 1351 only bishops from Iceland and the Faeroes came, except Bishop William from Orkney, who attended the synods in 1320 and 1327, and Bishop Johannes from Gardar, who was there in 1351. At the synods of 1334, 1336, and 1349, only Norwegian bishops were present.46 Incidentally, the acts from the synods in 1290 to 1351 are mostly about canon law matters and papal decisions, which the archbishop could forward to the subordinated bishops by mail. Helle is probably right when he says that attendance from overseas bishops at meetings in Norway was occasional and sporadic, not least because of the great distances and the seasonal sailing pattern. After 1351, insular bishops’ attendance at meetings in Norway are rare exceptions. However, some of them met at Scandinavian summits, for instance Bishop John Pak of Orkney, who was the only bishop from the Nidaros province that attended King Erik’s coronation in Kalmar in 1397. According to Eldbjørg Haug, Hallgeir, the Bishop of the Faeroes, probably attended King Erik’s coronation in Oslo in 1392.47 When in 1435 Archbishop Aslak Bolt 45 46 47

Helle, Konge og gode menn i norsk riksstyring ca. 1150–1319, pp. 215–20. Norges gamle love, iii, 229–306. Haug, ‘The Nidaros Church as a Political Actor in the Norwegian Commonwealth’,

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province

173

once again summoned the bishops to a provincial council, very few came, and none from the insular bishoprics. However, the archbishop had other means than provincial synods to assert his metropolitan authority. He could summon bishops from overseas ad hoc, which in the case of Iceland happened often. The archbishop also sent envoys with metropolitan decisions and commands to his insular suffragans. Such envoys probably carried out visitations on behalf of the archbishop. Moreover, he could instigate legal proceedings against those who did not comply with canon law and episcopal behaviour, as in the case of Bishop William of Orkney in the 1320s.48 Between the 1350s and the 1430s, however, such metropolitan interference in local ecclesiastical matters is rare. The protracted dismantling of the original Nidaros Province started in the first half of the fourteenth century. After c. 1320 no bishops of Sodor were ordained by any Archbishop of Trondheim, and when in 1349 the bishops of Sodor were granted exemption from their obligation to visit Nidaros during their terms of office, metropolitan authority in the islands was in fact suspended. However, the Norwegian archbishops in reality never succeeded in enforcing their authority in the Western Isles, and their position was further weakened when in 1266 the King of Norway ceded Man and the Hebrides to the King of Scots, even though the Treaty of Perth declares that the rights of the archbishop should not be violated as a consequence of the transfer of sovereignty. On the other hand, the ties between Nidaros and Kirkwall proved relatively strong, not least because Shetland was forfeited to the Norwegian king in 1195, and after 1266 Orkney as well was incorporated in the new monarchic state of King Magnus the Lawmender and his sons. Still in the fifteenth century bishops from Orkney visited Norway as when in 1426 Thomas Tulloch took part in the negotiations in Bergen between Scotland and Norway to renew the Treaty of Perth. At that occasion Thomas acted as a member of the Norwegian Council of the Realm. However, the establishment of a cathedral chapter in Kirkwall in the first half of the thirteenth century meant that the canons gained control over episcopal elections, the effect of which was that in the long run the Church of Orkney never was fully integrated in the Nidaros network. And, in the late Middle Ages we can observe a strengthening of ecclesiastical self-rule and insular identity in Orkney-Shetland. Besides, after 1400 the Orkney clergy gravitated increasingly towards Scotland, and especially St Andrews. p. 125. Haug adds: ‘It is evident that the chapter of Nidaros and Archbishop Vinald Henriksson (1387–1402) took responsibility for the church of the Faeroes the first years of the Great Schism’. 48 Smith, ‘The Nidaros Church and “Norgesveldet”’, pp. 166–70.

174

Steinar Imsen

In contrast to these ‘peripheral’ British dioceses, the Atlantic bishoprics were fully integrated into the web of Nidaros from c. 1270 until 1370. In this period the archbishop and his canons exerted unlimited control of the appointment process. Even though metropolitan authority was threatened by papal provisions and the centralization of the late medieval Church, especially in the period c. 1380–1430, the old system of appointments to the Norse dioceses in the Atlantic were almost restored in the second half of the fifteenth century. Thus, at latest from the turn of the thirteenth century, we can observe a bisection of the archbishops’ insular realm between a Norse-Atlantic core and a British periphery, which was finally lost in 1472.

Works Cited Primary Sources Adam von Bremen, Hamburgische Kirchengeschichte, ed. by Bernhard Schmeidler (Hannover: Hahn, 1917) Biskopa Sögur,  vol.  iii: Árna saga biskups, Lárentius saga biskups, ed.  by Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, Íslenzk fornrit, 17 (Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka fornritafélag, 1998) Diplomatarium Danicum, 1st ser., vol. ii: 1053–1169 (København: Reitzel, 1963) Diplomatarium Norvegicum, vols i–xxiii (Christiania/Oslo: Malling, 1847–1911) Hákonar saga, vol. ii, ed. by Sverrir Jakobsson and Þorleifur Hauksson, Íslenzk fornrit, 31 (Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka fornritafélag, 2013) Norges gamle love, 1st ser., vols i–v (Christiania, 1846–95), 2nd ser., vols i–iv (Christiania/ Oslo: Grøndahl, 1912–95) Norske middelalderdokumenter, ed.  by Sverre Bagge, Synnøve Holstad Smedsdal, and Knut Helle (Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1973)

Secondary Sources Andersen, Per Sveaas, ‘The Orkney Church in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: A Stepdaughter of the Norwegian Church’, Collegium Medievale, 2.1 (1989), 5–25 Beistad, Heidi Anett Øvergård, ‘An Almost Fanatical Devotion to the Pope? Power and Priorities in the Integration of the Nidaros Province, c.  1152–1300’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, NTNU Trondheim, 2016) —— ,  ‘Election and Rejection: The Norwegian “Seizure” of the Icelandic Bishoprics in 1237–39’, in ‘Ecclesia Nidrosiensis’ and ‘Noregs veldi’: The Role of the Church in the Making of Norwegian Domination in the Norse World, ed.  by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Akademika, 2012), pp. 203–29 Bull, Edvard, Det norske folks liv og historie gjennom tidene, vol. ii (Oslo: Aschehoug, 1931)

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province

175

Crawford, Barbara E., ‘The Bishopric of Orkney’, in Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537: Søkelys på Nidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag, 2003), pp. 143–58 —— , ‘St. Magnus Cathedral: A Proprietorial Church of the Orkney Earls?’, in ‘Ecclesia Nidrosiensis’ and ‘Noregs veldi’: The Role of the Church in the Making of Norwegian Domination in the Norse World, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Akademika, 2012), pp. 177–202 Dahlrup, Troels, ‘Orkney Bishops and Suffragans in the Scandinavian-Baltic Area’, in Scotland and Scandinavia, 800–1800, ed.  by Grant G. Simpson (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1990), pp. 38–47 Grohse, Ian Peter, ‘Defending Country and Realm: Military Features and the Norse-Scottish Frontier’, in Rex Insularum: The King of Norway and his ‘Skattlands’ as a Political System, c. 1250 – c. 1450, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Bergen: Fakbogforlaget, 2014), pp. 163–79 Hamre, Lars, ‘Domkapitel (Norge)’, in Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder, vol. iii (København: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1958), cols 195–98 —— , ‘Kannikgjeld’, in Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder, vol. xxi (København: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1977), cols 227–30 —— , ‘Striden mellom erkebiskop Jørund og domkapitlet i Nidaros’, in Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537: Søkelys på Nidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie, ed.  by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag, 2003), pp. 187–213 Haug, Eldbjørg, ‘The Council of Basle, the Rise against King Erik of Pomerania and the Last Provincial Statute of Norway’, Monumenta Iuris Canonici: Series C, Subsidia, 2016, 343–53 —— ,  ‘The Nidaros Church as a Political Actor in the Norwegian Commonwealth’, in Rex Insularum: The King of Norway and his ‘Skattlands’ as a Political System, c. 1250 – c. 1450, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Bergen: Fakbogforlaget, 2014), pp. 101–39 Helgi Þorláksson, ‘Succumbing Secular Chiefs: On Secular Chiefs in Iceland, their Loss of Ground to the Church, c. 1270 to 1355, and its Impact’, in ‘Ecclesia Nidrosiensis’ and ‘Noregs veldi’: The Role of the Church in the Making of Norwegian Domination in the Norse World, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Akademika, 2012), pp. 261–82 Helle, Knut, Konge og gode menn i norsk riksstyring ca. 1150–1319 (Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1972) Imsen, Steinar, ed., Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537: Søkelys på Nidaroskirkens og Nidaros­ provinsens historie (Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag, 2003) Johnsen, Arne Odd, ‘Subsidium pallii’, in Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder, vol. xvii (København: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1972), cols 410–19 Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, ‘Island og Nidaros’, in Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537: Søkelys på Nidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag, 2003) pp. 121–40 —— , ‘The Organisation of Hólar Bishopric according to Auðunarmáldagar’, in ‘Ecclesia Nidrosiensis’ and ‘Noregs veldi’: The Role of the Church in the Making of Norwegian Domination in the Norse World, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Akademika, 2012), pp. 243–59

176

Steinar Imsen

Kolsrud, Oluf, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og Biskoper indtil Reformationen, Diplomatarium Norvegicum, 17B (Christiania, 1913) Magnús Stefánsson, Staðir og staðamál: Studier i islandske egenkirkelige og beneficialrettslige forhold i Middelalderen, Part I, Historisk institutt, Skrifter 4 (Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen, 2000) Munch, Peter Andreas, Det norske Folks Historie, vol. iv.2 (Christiania, 1859) Sigurdson, Erika Ruth, ‘The Church in Fourteenth-Century Iceland: Ecclesiastical Administration, Literacy, and the Formation of an Elite Clerical Identity’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds, 2011) Smith, Brian, ‘The Nidaros Church and “Norgesveldet”: Shetland to 1470’, in ‘Ecclesia Nidrosiensis’ and ‘Noregs veldi’: The Role of the Church in the Making of Norwegian Domination in the Norse World, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Akademika, 2012), pp. 163–76 Thomas, Sarah, ‘The Diocese of Sodor and its Connection to Nidaros and the Curia after 1266’, in ‘Ecclesia Nidrosiensis’ and ‘Noregs veldi’: The Role of the Church in the Making of Norwegian Domination in the Norse World, ed.  by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Akademika, 2012), pp. 143–62 Vadum, Kristoffer, ‘Use of Canonistic Texts in Medieval Iceland: The Case of AM 671 4o fol.  40r–63v’, in ‘Ecclesia Nidrosiensis’ and ‘Noregs veldi’: The Role of the Church in the Making of Norwegian Domination in the Norse World, ed.  by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Akademika, 2012), pp. 283–300 Woolf, Alex, ‘The Diocese of Sudreyar’, in Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537: Søkelys på Nidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag, 2003), pp. 171–82

Part III Individual Bishops

The Scolari Family at the Head of the Bishopric of Volterra (1261–1269) Jacopo Paganelli Introduction On 24 November 1295, Pope Boniface VIII asked the Prior of S. Stefano al Ponte of Florence to investigate a series of accusations advanced against one Scolaro, known as Cimpo, and one Giovanni, members of the aristocratic family of the Scolari. The two were accused of the assault and robbery of the monastery of Passignano, an important religious house not far from Florence, from which they allegedly stole chalices, prayer books, and other precious objects. This event disproves the narrative according to which by the late thirteenth century, aristocratic violence was under the control of the most powerful city communes. At Passignano, like many other localities, it was not uncommon to find armed knights (milites) carrying out robberies, as this activity remained an important element of social distinction and economic revenue. In the late thirteenth century, the activity of civic councils did not hold a political monopoly, but left space for other forms of power. Moreover, it is possible that Scolaro and Giovanni were seeking a reward from their uncle Alberto Scolari, Bishop of Volterra between 1261 and 1269 and consobrinus (cousin) of the cardinal Ottaviano Ubaldini.1 Indeed, at the end of the thirteenth century, the bishops 1

This deed took place long before Boniface’s pontificate, most likely in the second half of

Jacopo Paganelli ([email protected]) has finished his PhD at the University of Pisa and now is a postdoctoral researcher at the same university. His research interests focus on Tuscany during High and Late Middle Ages. Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 179–197 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120617 BREPOLS

Jacopo Paganelli

180

of Volterra exerted rights of lordship (dominatus loci) over at least four castles, even if their authority on the town of Volterra itself had been contested some years before. For a long time, historians of late medieval Italy have privileged the study of urban political systems. This was mainly because of the wealth of the documentary sources produced and preserved in these urban environments, and the belief that Duecento men perceived the governance of the res publica within the city as the most worthy human activity. As a result, rural lordships were largely ignored, or studied in relation to the expansion of the communes into their surrounding territory. As recent scholarship has showed, however, civic communes did not expand their authority everywhere. In the second half of the thirteenth century, Tuscany was not just a land of powerful cities, but also one of numerous political, economic, and cultural areas controlled by robust lordships, lay (such as the comital family of the Guidi) as well as ecclesiastical (such as the bishops of Volterra and Arezzo). In many instances, these lordships had risen and consolidated after the breakdown of the institutions of the regnum in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries, a period which some historians have characterized as ‘feudal revolution’.2 the 1260s. The letter sent by Boniface VIII to the Prior of S. Stefano ad Pontem against Scolaro and Giovanni may be found in ASF, Diplomatico Passignano, S. Michele, ad datam. The two aristocrats were accused because ‘tempore quo Florentina civitas adherebat quondam Manfredo olim principi Tarentino ad monasterium predictum cum quibusdam suis complicibus armata manu hostiliter accedentes monasterium ipsum temerarie occuparunt ac illud detinuerunt per quatuor annos et amplius occupatum, fructus, redditus et proventus eiusdem percipiendo, et libros, calices, onamenta ecclesiastica et alia bona ibidem inventa exinde nequiter absportando’. The letter is discussed in Plesner, L’emigrazione dalla campagna alla città libera di Firenze, pp. 149–50. Ottaviano Ubaldini, ‘’l Cardinale’, is depicted in Dante’s Inferno (X, 118–20) as lying near the emperor Frederick II, where the epicureans are punished. He is believed to have said: ‘si anima est, ego perdidi millies pro Gibellinis’ (see Vasina, ‘Ubaldini, Ottaviano degli’). Now essential on the issues concerning kinship in the ecclesiastical world is Varanini, ‘Strategie familiari per la carriera ecclesiastica’. On rural lordships, see Feller, Paysans et seigneurs au Moyen Âge; for the Tuscan case, see Wickham, ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’. For the political events mentioned infra, see Canaccini, Ghibellini e ghibellinismo in Toscana, pp. 297–352; and Najemy, Storia di Firenze, pp. 86–91. See also Bastianoni, Cherubini, and Pinto, La Toscana ai tempi di Arnolfo. For a historiographical point of view over the years 1260–66, see Faini, ‘I sei anni dimenticati’. 2

See Pinto and Pirillo, Lontano dalle città; Collavini, ‘I signori rurali in Italia centrale’. The commune of Volterra had become independent notwithstanding Barbarossa’s concessions to Bishop Galgano (1150–68), among which were the jurisdiction over the comitatus around the city. In the thirteenth century, the bishops still held jurisdiction over the castles of Berignone, Montalcinello, Montieri, and Montecastelli; for the development of the ecclesiastical lordship of Volterra, see Paganelli, ‘“Infra nostrum episcopatum et comitatum”’.

the scolari family at the head of the bishopric of volterra

181

In this essay, I shall use the region around Volterra (known as Volterrano) as a case study to analyse the consolidation of power in a rural lordship untouched by civic governments. In particular, I will focus on the role of Bishop Alberto Scolari and his retinue within the Ghibelline party that dominated Tuscany between the Battle of Montaperti of 1260 and the Battles of Benevento in 1266 and Colle Valdelsa in 1269. The bishopric of Volterra exerted a considerable degree of attraction for Tuscan aristocratic families, thanks to the highly remunerative offices available within its entourage, such as the governorship of episcopal castles and other administrative roles. In terms of opportunities for the milites, the rural lordship of Volterra was comparable to civic governments. At the same time, the bishop benefited from the collaboration with the milites, because his lordship was strengthened by the presence of a supporting aristocracy. For this purpose, in the final part of this study I have inserted an appendix of three unpublished documents taken from the Episcopal Archive of Volterra: these documents will help to enlighten the connections and the ways through which Alberto led his policy.3 In June 1251, Filippo di Sinibaldo Scolari, a relative of Alberto, swore allegiance to the Ghibelline league with the commune of Siena and other Tuscan polities, ‘pro se ipso et pro omnibus hominibus sue domus’ (for himself and all the other men of his house). In the wake of the death of Frederick II, the pro-imperial faction, led by Farinata degli Uberti, had found a precious and strong ally in the city of Siena. Meanwhile, the members of the Primo Popolo of Florence were pursuing the hegemony of their city on a regional scale. In 1254, having subjected the town of Poggibonsi, the commune of Florence gained a definitive foothold in the Valdelsa by acquiring the castle of Pulicciano from Neri Piccolino of the Uberti family. And after a truce with Siena achieved on 11 June 1254, Florence imposed a pro-Florentine regime at Volterra. In those years, Alberto Scolari had moved from his position as a canon in the chapter of the cathedral of Florence, where he was in 1257, to that of Archdeacon of Bologna, where he remained until 1261, at which point Pope Alexander IV sent him to the see of Volterra.4 Alberto’s election as Bishop of Volterra happened soon after the resignation of Ranieri I Ubertini, who had never been consecrated by the pope. Ranieri had been chosen by Innocent IV to form a boundary against the Florentines together 3

Raveggi, ‘Siena nell’Italia dei guelfi e dei ghibellini’. The truce between Siena and Florence is in ASS, Dipl. Riformagioni, ad datam. For these political events, see Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, pp. 535–860; and Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 112–14, especially for Pulicciano: this castle was sold to Florence by Ranieri Piccolino on 18 December 1254 (ASF, Capitoli, 30, fol. 184). The quotation in the text is taken from ASF, Capitoli, Appendice 44, fol. 25r. 4

Jacopo Paganelli

182

with his brother Guglielmino, Bishop of Arezzo. However, Ranieri had later agreed an alliance with Florence, granting them a substantial share of the areas of jurisdiction controlled by the see of Volterra.5 At a second stage, the Senesi forced the bishop to change his alliance, as they managed the silver mines of Montieri and were the bishop’s creditors for enormous sums. Thus, Bishop Ranieri promised: quod terras dicti Episcopatus vel aliquam ipsarum non submictemus vel supponemus alicui comitatui vel loco seu alicui speciali persone toto tempore vite nostre et etiam hinc ad duodecim annos nec supponi vel submicti promittemus, immo procurabimus et faciemus ne fiat, nec societatem vel federationem aliquam faciemus nos vel successores nostri usque dictum tempus sine parabola et licentia dicti Comunis Senensis, exceptis fidelibus dicti Episcopatus presentibus qui non sint inimici Comunis Senensis.6 [that we shall not subject the lands of the said episcopate nor any of these to any commune or person for the entire duration of our life and for the next twelve years, promising that we shall not have them subjected by anyone. And we also shall make sure that this does not happen, and promise not to constitute any league, either us or our descendants, within this period of time and without the authorization and licence of the commune of Siena, with the exception of the faithful who are not enemies of the commune of Siena.]

The outcome of the Battle of Montaperti and the defeat of the Florentines forced the Holy See to choose a Florentine bishop for Volterra, lest the political chessboard of Tuscany become too unbalanced and favourable for Siena.7

Alberto Scolari and his Networks The first official act carried out by Alberto Scolari dates to 11 June 1261, when he appointed two men as notaries at San Gimignano. However, we do not know the date of the two ‘procuria partis ghibellinorum Florentinorum ad componendum amicitiam et societatem cum episcopo Vulterrano’ (power of 5

The alliance between Florence and Ranieri I, officialized by the episcopal notary Lamberto, is in ADV, Diplomatico, 760. For Ranieri Ubertini, see Paganelli, ‘Ubertini, Ranieri’. For Arezzo in the same years, see Scharf, Potere e società ad Arezzo. 6 ASS, Dipl. Riformagioni, 31 August 1254. 7 On 6 June 1255, the commune of Siena deliberated about the fact that the commune of Florence tried to ‘habere Massam et episcopatum Vulterre’ (ASS, Consiglio Generale, Deliberazioni, 4, fol. 78r). ‘Rainerius de Ubertinis olim electus Vulterranus’ was still alive in 1285 (see BGV, MS 8491, III, fol. 18v).

the scolari family at the head of the bishopric of volterra

183

attorney granted by the Ghibelline party of Florence to forge an alliance with the Bishop of Volterra), and the ‘instrumentum amicitie et societatis inter eos seu procuratores eorum’ (treaty of alliance between them or their proctors).8 In the autumn of that year, Alberto began an energetic programme to regain the lost rights of his episcopate. So, for example, the bishop appointed a new governor of the castle of Montevoltraio, little more than a mile from Volterra, and provided for nine soldiers (masnaderii) to reside in the fortress so that they might guard it. Zambrasio, the personal notary of Cardinal Ottaviano Ubaldini, was also present when Alberto provided for the castle of Montevoltraio to be defended. However, the castle soon capitulated to the Volterrani in July 1262. The conditions of the peace, which survive only fragmentarily, foresaw a large reimbursement for the bishop, which was accepted ‘pro se et amicis et de domo de Scolaribus’ (for himself and his allies and regarding the Scolari family), and the ‘ratificatio domini cardinalis in partibus’ (ratification made by the cardinal legate).9 As we learn from this document, some members of Alberto’s family — probably, but not surely, his nephews who would later occupy the monastery of Passignano — fought alongside their uncle, hoping perhaps to draw some financial benefits for their services. Who were the masnaderi tasked with the defence of Montevoltraio, however? Three of these came from San Giuliano di Settimo near Signa in the episcopate of Florence, two came from Fiesole, and the other two from Florence. These extensive geographical origins reflect the outreach of the Scolari family as well that of the Counts of Gangalandi, the patrons of the church of S. Martino nel Valdarno near Florence, and fellow members of the Ghibelline party. Since at least 1251, a member of the Gangalandi (another Alberto) had been a canon at Florence, where he perhaps met his homonymous future Bishop of Volterra. In 1261, Cardinal Ottaviano Ubaldini appointed the cleric Ghibellino da Gangalandi as Prior of S. Martino. Ghibellino, whose name tells us much about the political orientation of his family, would become one of the most trusted advisors to Alberto Scolari, and canon of the cathedral of Volterra after 1264.10 8

See BGV, MS 8494, III, fols 39r, 40r; and ASF, Capitoli, Appendice, 44, fol. 25r. See Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 128–31. 10 Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 146–48 and pp. 151–52. The Counts of Gangalandi, like the Scolari, incurred troubles with the ecclesiastical authorities because of their violent character, as demonstrated, for example, by the accusations advanced by the vicar of the Bishop of Florence against Lapo di Filippo in 1266, for crimes against the church of S. Martino in Palma, under the jurisdiction of S. Salvatore di Settimo. ASF, Dipl. S. Frediano in Cestello, 28 June 1266. 9

Jacopo Paganelli

184

Together with ties of solidarity cultivated within the Church, the link between Alberto Scolari and the Counts of Gangalandi was furthermore cemented by military support provided to the bishop. After the defeat of Manfredi, in February 1266, the leader of the Ghibelline party, Guido Novello, asked the cities of Tuscany to send knights in order to support his power in Florence, according to the chronicle written by Giovanni Villani. We know that various members of the Gangalandi, namely Tondellino, Catello, Lambresco, Chianni, Piggello, and Tecco, were ‘in servitio domini episcopi’ (in service of the lord bishop) on 17 June 1266, when the blacksmith of the bishop certified that Tondellino’s warhorse was sick.11 An important aspect is that the Bishop of Volterra, a Florentine citizen, was felt like an authority capable of certifying the disease of Tondellino’s warhorse, declaring that he could not to be sent to Florence. Publica fides (i.e. the power of certifying) recognized to the Bishop of Volterra and to his blacksmith enlightens how faible were the barriers between the urban communes and the rural lordships even in the second half of the thirteenth century.12 Villani thought that Guido Novello asked the allies for knights because, on 24 May 1266, the pope appointed two friars of the so-called Ordo Fratrum Gaudentium, Catalano and Loderingo, to bring peace in Florence as the city was becoming reconciled with the Holy See: according to the chronicler, the appointment made by Clement IV aroused Guido’s envy. On 18 June 1266, Ghibellino, Prior of S. Martino in Gangalandi, designated three procurators to act against the measures taken by the friars Catalano and Loderingo, concerning the return of the goods seized by the commune of Florence, which could damage the estate of San Martino. The document is very important because it enlightens how the friars sent by the pope were promoting the reconciliation in Florence; on the other side, it clarifies how the networks between the episcopal clique and the city of Florence were strong.13 Moreover, in 1265 Chianni, son of Corrado and brother of Tecco and Catello of the Gangalandi, was appointed as podestà of the episcopal castle of Montecastelli in Valdicecina. In the same year, the bishop nominated Piggello, brother of Tondellino and of Alberto canon at Florence, as general vicar in temporalibus of the episcopate, a rather important office indeed. Thus, Alberto Scolari had fully absorbed a powerful Ghibelline Florentine aristocratic family — 11

See Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 154–55. See Tarassi, ‘Il regime guelfo’, pp. 73–90; Villani, Nuova Cronica, ed. by Porta, pp. 352–54. 13 For the Fratres Gaudentes, see Gazzini, ‘I Disciplinati, la milizia dei frati Gaudenti, il comune di Bologna e la pace cittadina’. Villani, Nuova Cronica, ed. by Porta, p. 352, uses the word ‘gelosia’ to explain the behaviour adopted by Guido Novello. 12

the scolari family at the head of the bishopric of volterra

185

a background similar to his own — into his entourage, rewarding his allies and supporters with numerous prestigious offices. This was undoubtedly a successful political manoeuvre, as it guaranteed the support of the dominant political party to the episcopate.14 Proof of this is the acquisition of the castle of Pulicciano in the Valdelsa, a manoeuvre planned by Cardinal Ottaviano Ubaldini. The castle of Pulicciano had anciently been the property of the bishops of Volterra, but Frederick II had granted it to the powerful clan of the Uberti and in particular to Ranieri Piccolino, brother of the more famous Farinata. It is worth mentioning that Ranieri Piccolino had been an associate of Brancaleone Scolari, a relative of Bishop Alberto, as the two had signed a payment to the commune of Siena on behalf of the Ghibelline party of Florence on 10 August 1250. Bishop elect Ranieri I of Volterra had sought to reconquer the castle of Pulicciano by putting together an army, but his efforts were in vain, despite the financial and military help received from San Gimignano. In December 1254, Ranieri Piccolino sold the castle to the commune of Florence.15 When Alberto Scolari was appointed as Bishop of Volterra, the castle was still occupied by Ranieri Piccolino. Unlike Ranieri I, Alberto did not seek to take the castle back through military force. Rather, he took a diplomatic path, also exploiting the strong links of solidarity which existed within the Ghibelline faction. Thus, on 8 May 1263, Ranieri Piccolino and Bishop Alberto asked Cardinal Ottaviano Ubaldini to act as a peacemaker so as to solve the question of Pulicciano.16 In 1258, the cardinal had sought to overturn the regime of the Primo Popolo of Florence, together with some Ghibelline allies such as the Uberti and the Scolari. The conspiracy had failed, and many Florentines had been forced to take refuge in Siena. Thus, it is clear why the bishop and his counterparty had recourse to Ottaviano: the delegate of the Holy See was a common friend to both Uberti and Scolari. Upon examination of the dispute, the cardinal finally declared: Ecclesia Vulterrana intentionem suam non plene fundaverat in hac parte ex quo iura ipsius Ecclesie dubia credebantur; et […], propter potentiam dicti nobilis et propter alias multas causas, castrum ipsum cum eius curte iuribus et pertinentiis suis magis dispendiosum et dampnosum quam fructuosum eidem Ecclesie posset 14

Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp.  154–55. Piggello appears to be Alberto’s general vicar in ADV, Diplomatico, 512. 15 The receipt of payment is in ASS, Dipl. Riformagioni, 10 August 1250. For Ranieri I and Pulicciano, see Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 142–45. When the castle of Pulicciano had been granted to Ranieri Piccolino by Frederick II is unknown. 16 ADV, Diplomatico, 496.

Jacopo Paganelli

186

existere presertim, cum proventus ipsius castri cum eius curte, iuribus et pertinentiis suis annui modici sine valoris.17 [The church of Volterra has not argued its instances well as its rights appear as dubious. Moreover, because of the power of [Ranieri Piccolino], and because of many other reasons, the castle itself and its modest jurisdiction without much value may represent a costly and troubling nuisance, rather than an advantage, for the said church since the income from this castle and the rights attached to it are of small annual value.]

As the document reads, the cardinal argued that the Church of Volterra was not powerful enough to drive the Uberti out. But it is probable that the cardinal needed the bishop and Ranieri not to be at war, so as to weaken the Ghibelline front. Thus, Ottaviano established that Ranieri Piccolino should become a vassal of Bishop Alberto, pay him half a golden florin every year, and serve as a knight for his overlord. This oath of fealty had to be sworn again every twenty-eight years. On 30 May 1263, a great ceremony of homage was set up. Zambrasio, notary of the cardinal, and Ubaldino di Pila (represented by Zambrasio) declared that they would obtain papal approval for the compromise arbitrated by Ottaviano. The ceremony, which was held at the church of Casole d’Elsa, was attended — among other people — by Mainetto, Bishop of Fiesole, and Ghibellino da Gangalandi, Prior of San Martino.18

Conclusion In his analysis of leading Ghibelline families at Florence in the aftermath of the Battle of Montaperti, the Italian historian Sergio Raveggi noticed that the Counts of Gangalandi were characterized by a low degree of political participation in the councils of the city. Raveggi hypothesized that this was caused by the refusal of the aristocratic Gangalandi to mix with urban families of recent social affirmation. In fact, however, we know that the Gangalandi did not invest in the communal institutions, but rather in the rural lordship of Volterra, as its bishops remained wealthy and powerful by the end of the thirteenth century. The servitium episcopi was probably seen as something more appropriate for the aristocratic lifestyle of the Gangalandi, and certainly as something more financially rewarding. In 1268, Pigello took part in the Ghibelline assault against Volterra, which had been taken back by the Guelphs after the Battle of Benevento (1266). As the siege failed, the 17 18

ADV, Diplomatico, 497. ADV, Diplomatico, 500, 501, both edited in the Appendix below.

the scolari family at the head of the bishopric of volterra

187

count was captured. At that point, Alberto wrote to the members of the Commune of Volterra, begging them to release his protegee in return for a rich series of jurisdictional concessions. Because of recent political events, the bishop had been forced to steer his policy in favour of the Guelphs, up to the point where Alberto facilitated the election of Foligno degli Adimari, a relative of his, as podestà of Gambassi in Valdelsa (a castle in which the bishop shared his jurisdiction together with San Gimignano). At this stage, politics moved along the lines of blood kin, which ran across the divisions between Guelphs and Ghibellines.19 We do not know whether Alberto’s petition on behalf of the Count of Gangalandi was successful, but Piggello was released from prison. What is worth noticing here is that rural lordships such as that of the Bishop of Volterra constituted important paths for social ascendency, rather similarly to the cities. For aristocratic clans, distinguished by an attitude to rule, the decision to focus one’s familial strategies on the city or rural lordship depended on a number of different aspects, although never determined by teleology. At the same time, the episcopal see was strengthened by these links, and the bishop became as strong as the families supporting him were. In particular, we have seen how the entourage of the Bishop of Volterra was based on a number of elements: family connections (between uncle and nephews), factional allegiance (Gangalandi and Scolari), geographical proximity (the Florentine masnaderii present at Montevoltraio), and economic interests. Moreover, all these elements created, pour ainsi dire, an osmotic connection between the episcopal clique and the city of Florence during Alberto’s pontificate, as the events that happened in Florence had strong repercussions in Volterra. But the argument can be further developed: as in the rest of medieval Europe a city was characterized by the presence of a cathedral within the walls; an episcopal lordship in the countryside was never rural tout court, because the bishop always maintained a special and indissoluble relation with his city. Indeed, in addition to his religious prerogatives, he could find it extremely profitable to bring the crops he cultivated in his farms to town, in order to gain high profits from the urban market. Given this bond, the episcopal entourage was never a fully rural entity, because its members also followed the bishop when he was in the city: as we have seen, the vicissitudes concerning Piggello, Count of Gangalandi, deeply influenced the political life of the city when he took part in the assault on Volterra, forcing his lord to deal with the commune. The weight of the episcopal clique 19

See Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 155–56. Raveggi, ‘Il regime ghibellino’, p. 32. See also Raveggi, ‘Le famiglie di parte ghibellina nella classe dirigente della città di Firenze durante il xiii secolo’.

Jacopo Paganelli

188

was so significant that it could affect the appointment of the next bishop: not accepting the election — made by the other members of the cathedral chapters — of Guglielmo Pannocchieschi, a powerful family which, at that time, was reconciled with the Angevins, the canons Ghibellino and Bertoldo left Volterra and barricaded themselves in the castle of Berignone. In this fortress, Bertoldo and Ghibellino, failing to recognize Guglielmo’s postulatio to the Holy See, proceeded to an alternative election supported by the Counts of Gangalandi. They chose Cacciaconte Cacciaconti, the Bishop of Cremona who could not take possession of his diocese, belonging to a powerful Ghibelline family of Siena. However, after the Battle of Colle Valdelsa (1269) and the collapse of almost all hopes of the Ghibelline party, the new pope, Gregory X, did not confirm Guglielmo Pannocchieschi nor the candidate proposed by Ghibellino and Bertoldo, who, in the meanwhile, returned to Volterra and made peace with the other canons.20 En résumé, considering the debate between those who claim the nearly obvious superiority of the commune over the rural aristocracy, and those who underline the resiliency of its members during the thirteenth century, it is possible to assume that an episcopal entourage, at least of those bishoprics — like that of Volterra — provided with great seigneurial estates, constituted a third way, by which the members of the most important aristocratic families could improve the consistence of their patrimonies, their military skills, and their attitudes to command over other people.21 In 1272, by which point Alberto had been dead for three years, his nephews asked the Cardinals Ottobono of Sant’Adriano and Uberto of Sant’Eustachio to obtain ‘a certain quantity of silver in certain silver vases’ held by the canons of the cathedral, which had been saved by Alberto ‘for his nephews’ (suis nepotibus). Even if the document does not specify the names of the nephews, it is likely that these were Scolaro and Giovanni.22

20

See Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, p. 151. For the support of the Counts of Gangalandi to the canons who had left Volterra, see BGV, MS 5672, II, fol. 31v: ‘de comitibus de Gangalandi qui arcem de Berignone Vulterrani Episcopatus quam tenent pro ut dicitur’ ([Ghibellino belonging] to the Counts of Gangalandi who hold the castle of Berignone of the Episcopate of Volterra, as they say). For Cacciaconte, see Kamp, ‘Cacciaconti, Cacciaconte’. 21 For a survey over the Tuscan aristocracy of the thirteenth century, see Cortese, ‘I destini di un gruppo dominante nell’età della crescita’. 22 Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 153–54.

the scolari family at the head of the bishopric of volterra

189

Appendix

ADV, Cancelleria, Attività di governo, Notarile Rossa no. 1, fol. 26v. Pateat publice quod dominus Gibellinus prior canonice Sancti Martini de Gangalandi Florentini comitatus nomine suo et dicte sue ecclesie fecit constituit et ordinavit suos et dicte sue ecclesie sindicos procuratores et certos nuntios dominum Pucciolum de Cappiardis olim domini Piscis et Lapum olim domini Guidonis del Gallo et Banchellum filium Maraboctini de Infangatis cives Florentinos absentes et quemlibet eorum in solidum ita quod non sit melior condicio occupantis ad comparendum et representandum se pro eo et dicta canonica coram dominis Loderingo et Catalano fratribus Ordinis militie Sancte Marie de Bononia nunc rectoribus sive potestatibus Comunis Florentini et coram quocumque potestate capitaneo, iudice vel officialibus Comunis Florentini et ad petendum instanter compelli dominum Rodulfum olim domini Tafuri de Gangalandi exire et liberam et expeditam dimictere possessionem domorum poderis et possessionum sive terrarum positarum in populo Sancti Micchaelis de Gangalandi spectantem ad dictum priorem et canonicam quam intrasse dicitur nuper sive occupasse dictus dominus Rodulfus occasione cuiusdam bannimenti sive promulgationis factorum ab ipsis fratribus scilicet quod quilibet rediret ad possessionem suam, fingens ad se idem dominus Rodulfus dicta possessio spectare et ad agendum pro hiis omnibus et singulis contra dictum dominum Rodulfum vel contra quemcumque alium detentorem coram predictis fratribus, potestate, capitaneo, iudice vel officialibus Comunis Florentini et aliis quibuscumque iudicibus ordinariis sive extraordinariis, delegatis vel subdelegatis et in quacumque curia respondendum, excipiendum, replicandum, reconveniendum litem, contestandum et cuiuslibet generis sacramentum prestandum, petitiones faciendum et respondendum, testes et instrumenta inducendum et reprobandum, sententiam audiendum et appellandum si opus

Let it be publicly known that Lord Ghibellino, prior of the rectory of St Martin of Gangalandi in the Florentine district, in his name and in that of the aforementioned church, nominates and appoints as attorneys Lord Pucciolo dei Ciappardi of the late Lord Pesce, Lapo of the late Lord Guido del Gallo, and Banchello of Marabottino de Infangatis Florentine citizens absent, each of them on a joint basis, to present themselves to the Lords Loderengo and Catalano, friars of the Order of the Militia of the Blessed Mary, at this time rectors and magistrates of the commune of Florence, and before every magistrate, captain, judge, or official of the Florentine commune to ask to immediately compel Lord Rodolfo, son of Lord Tafuro of Gangalandi, to abandon and liberate the possession of the houses, of the farm and of the possessions and of the lands positioned in the parish of San Michele of Gangalandi that are due to the aforementioned prior and the rectory which it is said that Lord Rodolfo has occupied on the occasion of a provision made by the said friars, i.e. that each should renew acquisition of his own possessions, simulating that the said possession was due to him; and to act in all these things against the said Lord Rodolfo and against every other possessor before the aforementioned friars, magistrates, captain, judge, or officials of the commune of Florence and to any other ordinary or extraordinary judge, delegate, or subdelegate, to answer in any court engaging in any kind of judicial action and to respond to any allegation in any court, either by inducing witnesses and presenting documents or challenging them. Promised to me, Ildebrandino, the undermentioned notary, recipient for each party involved, in his name and in that of his church, regarding the ‘judgement of the sixth’ and the ‘sentence to be paid’ under the collateral of the assets of said church. Act in Casole, Lord Bencivenni parish priest of the parish of

190 fuerit, et appellationes prosequendum et geraliter et cetera habiturus et cetera et in casu defensionis volens dictos suos procuratores et quemlibet eorum in solidum sublevare ab honere satisdationis. Promisit mihi Ildebrandino notario infrascripto recipienti pro omni eo cuius interest et pro se et ipsa sua ecclesia de iudicio sisti et iudicato solvendo sub ypotheca bonorum dicte ecclesie. Actum Casulis coram domino Bencivenne plebano plebis de Villamagna Florentine diocesis, Iohanne quondam Ardiccionis et Falco quondam Compagni testibus. Anno Domini mocclxvi, indictione viiii, xviii iunii,

Jacopo Paganelli Villamagna of the Florentine diocese, Giovanni of the late Ardiccione and Falco of the late Compagno present as witnesses. Year of the Lord 1266, 9th indiction, June 18th.

the scolari family at the head of the bishopric of volterra

191

ADV, Diplomatico, 500. Roll of parchment, 29 × 22 cm. On the backside: ‘carta promissionis facte episcopo Alberto a Rainerio Piccholino de castro Pulicciani’ (document of the promise made to the Bishop Alberto da Ranieri Piccolino regarding the castle of Pulicciano). In nomine Domini amen. Ego Raynerius Piccholinus quondam domini Iacobi Schiatte de Ubertis civis Florentinus, pro me ipso, et nos Ugolinus de Filiccione filius domini Ubaldini de Pila et Zambrasius notarius de Burgo Sancti Laurentii, pro eo presente et mandante, et quisque nostrum principaliter in solidum proprio motu ex certa scientia et non per errorem per solempnem stipulationem promictimus et convenimus vobis venerabili patri domino Alberto Dei gratia electo Vulterrano recipienti nomine vestro et nomine dicte Ecclesie Vulterrane et Episcopatus et successorum vestrorum nos facturos et curaturos ita quod sanctissimus pater dominus Urbanus papa quartus hinc ad tres menses proximos, vel ad alium longiorem terminum quem nobis duxerit prorogandum, contractum hodie celebratum inter vos pro Episcopatu, ex parte una, et me dictum Rainerium Piccholinum, ex altera, super castro et de castro Pulicciani et eius curte et iuribus et pertinentiis suis omnibus, ut constat plene per singula instrumento rogato manu Lamberti notarii filii Bracii Francobari, et omnia in eo contenta, ratificabit et confirmabit non dicendo ut rite factum est, sed simpliciter confirmabit ex certa scientia, sicut scriptum est, et licteras confirmationis ipsius vel instrumentum publicum in laude sapientis sine malitia confectum vobis dabimus in termino supradicto. Et si hec omnia non fecerimus, vobis dabimus et dare promictimus nomine pene duo milia libras denariorum Vulterranorum monete; quam penam vobis dabimus et dare promictimus et quisque nostrum in solidum et in totum vobis stipulatorio nomine dicti Episcopatus et successorum nostrorum si committeretur et predicta omnia non observarentur etiam pena soluta vel non commissa vel non predicta omnia per singula observare promictimus. Obligando in hiis et pro eis nos et quemlibet nostrum in solidum et nostros et cuiusque nostrum heredes et bona vobis recipientibus ut dictum est pignore. Renuntiantes exceptioni non facte permissionis et sic non

In the name of God, amen. I, Ranieri Piccolino, son of Lord Iacopo di Schiatta of Uberti, citizen of Florence on my own behalf, and we, Ugolino di Filiccione, son of Lord Ubaldino di Pila, and Zambrasio, notary of Borgo San Lorenzo, present on behalf of this man, and each of them, with all pertinent blessings do pledge and establish with you, venerable father Lord Alberto, who with the grace of God is elected Bishop of Volterra, receiving in your name and in that of the Church of Volterra and of the diocese and of your successors, that we will ensure the approval of the most holy father Pope Urban IV within three months, or a longer term that you will permit, of the contract celebrated today between you in the name of the diocese and I, Ranieri Piccolino, as it fully consists of the deed made by the notary Lamberto, son of Braccio Francobaro, and all the things contained therein, and that it will be ratified as is written, and we will give you in the aforementioned terms the letters of confirmation or a public document made by a legal expert. And if we do not do all these things we will pay two thousand lire of coins of Volterra as compensation; a penalty to which each of us promises to fully and completely adhere, to you and your successors, if necessary and if the aforementioned conditions will not be observed and, having paid the penalty, we promise to observe these conditions. We, all within our group and all our heirs, bind to you in pledge for these things, and renounce the exception of the unfulfilled promise and the contract not honoured, of the condition without cause and for unjust cause, and of the privilege of the court and the benefit of the new constitution and constitutions that concern the guarantors and all rights that are valid against these things. Act in the church of Casole, the venerable father Lord Mainetto by the grace of God Bishop of Fiesole is present, as is Lord Ghibellino, Prior of San Martino di Gangalandi; Lord Alberto, parish priest of the parish church of Gerfalco; Lord Dono, Prior of San Michele Bertelde, Florence; and Lord Diedi, judge, son of the late Lord Iacopo

192 celebrati contractus, conditioni sine causa et ex iniusta causa et fori privilegio et beneficio nove et novarum constitutionum de fideiussoribus et omni iuri contra hec agenti. Actum in ecclesia de Casulis presentibus venerabili patre domino Maynetto Dei gratia episcopo Fesulano, domino Ghibellino priore Sancti Martini de Gangalandi, domino Alberto plebano plebis de Gerfalco, domino Dono priore Sancti Michaelis Berteldi Florentini et domino Diedi iudice quondam Iacoppi de Florentia et aliis testibus vocatis et rogatis. Anno Domini millesimo ccolxiiio, indictione via, xxxo maii. (SN). Ego Lambertus notarius filius Braccii Francobari predictis omnibus interfui et ea omnia rogatus scripsi et publicavi.

Jacopo Paganelli of Florence, and other witnesses. Year of the Lord 1263, sixth indiction, May 30th. (Notarial mark) I, Lamberto, notary and son of Braccio di Francobaro, have witnessed all the aforementioned things and all these things I have written and published.

the scolari family at the head of the bishopric of volterra

193

ADV, Diplomatico, 501. Roll of parchment, 32 × 18.5 cm. On the backside: ‘concessio castri Pulicciani per episcopum Vulterranum Rainerio Picolino Florentino sub annuo censu medii florini’ (concession of the castle of Pulicciano by the Bishop of Volterra to Ranieri Piccolino from Florence for a yearly fee of a half florin). In nomine Domini amen. Ego Rainerius Piccholinus quondam domini Iacobi Schiatte Florentinus civis in veritate confiteor vobis domino Alberto Dei gratia Vulterrano electo recipienti nomine et vice Ecclesie Vulterrane et pro ea me nomine meo et heredum nostrorum habuisse et recepisse a vobis dantibus et concedentibus in perpetuam emphyteosim castrum de Pulicciano qud est Ecclesie Vulterrane cum pertinentiis et iuribus omnibus et curte dicti castri, ad habendum, tenendum, possidendum, utendum et fruendum in perpetuum [et] infinitum; pro quarum rerum concessione mihi facta solvi vobis c solidos denariorum Pisanorum. Et pro earum rerum pensione et censu promicto vobis ut dictum est recipientibus dare et solvere annuatim in perpetuum [et] in infinitum in festo Sancte Marie de mense Augusti medium florinum aureum ex florinis nunc currentibus. Promicto etiam vobis recipientibus modo dicto castrum predictum et curte ipsius cum pertinentiis et iuribus suprascriptis tamquam emphyteotha in res dictas a vobis susceptas emphyteothico iure pro vobis et successoribus vestris et dicta Ecclesia in perpetuum [et] in infinitum per me et meos heredes tenere et possidere et singulis viginti octo annis ultimo anno ipsorum singulorum viginti octo annorum res dictas in emphytheosim a vobis et vestris successoribus postulare ac recipere, et ipsius emphytheosis eiusque receptionis et confessionis contractum vobis et eisdem successoribus renovare, et instrumentum inde facere secundum tenorem et formam huius presentis instrumenti, et sub simili pensione sive censu a me et meis heredibus in perpetuum prestando et dando ut in hoc eodem instrumento continetur, et singulis xxviii annis predictis tempore dicte renovationis et eius occasione dare et solvere vobis et successoribus vestris centum soldos predicte monete. Promicto etiam vobis, ut sepedictum est recipientibus, renovare et facere per me et meos heredes infrascriptam fidelitatem singulis xxviii annis predictis quando fiet renovatio emphytheosis

In the name of God, amen. I, Ranieri Piccolino of the late Lord Iacopo Schiatta of Florence, do veritably acknowledge to you, Lord Alberto, by the grace of God elected Bishop of Volterra, recipient in the name of the Church of Volterra, in my name, and in that of my heirs, that I have received from you, given in perpetual emphyteusis, the castle of Pulicciano which is of the Church of Volterra, with its annexes and all the rights and jurisdiction of the castle, to make use of it in perpetuity; by virtue of the concession granted to me, I have paid the sum of 100 solidi of Pisan coins to you. And as remittance for these things I promise to pay you yearly and indefinitely a half a gold florin of the present currency before the feast of Saint Mary in the month of August. I also promise to you in the aforementioned manner that I will hold and possess the castle of Pulicciano as leaseholder placed by you in the aforementioned goods, in your name and in that of your successors and of the aforementioned Church, in perpetuity, for me and for my heirs and, every twenty-eight years, in the last year of this period I will request and receive the things said in emphyteusis from you and your successors, and renew to you and your successors the contract of emphyteusis, and then make the deed according to the form of this contract, and with the same fee to be paid in my name and in that of my heirs in perpetuity, and every twenty-eight years as mentioned, at the time of renewal, to pay to your successors the sum of 100 of the aforementioned coin. I also promise to you, under the same conditions, to renew, also in the name of my heirs, the undermentioned oath of loyalty every twenty-eight years upon the time of the renewal of the aforementioned emphyteusis; and, whenever it should happen that you or your successors or the Church of Volterra may set up a general army in the diocese of Volterra, I promise to serve you at my expense with a knight for fifteen days. I also promise, on said occasion, to be faithful to you and to the Church, and I swear of my own

194 dicte; et, quotienscumque contigitur vos vel successores vestros aut Ecclesiam Vulterranam in Episcopatu Vulterrano exercitum facere generalem, servitia vobis et successoribus eisdem et Ecclesie memorate meis expensis cum uno milite per quindecim dies in eodem exercitu. Pretera confiteor vobis, recipientibus ut est dictum, me occasione predicta esse vestrum et successorum vestrorum et Ecclesie dicte fidelem, et nichilominus iuro sponte ad sancta Dei evangelia, libro corporaliter tacto, esse de cetero vester et successorum vestrorum et Ecclesie dicte fidelis, et salvare pro posse personas vestram et successorum vestrorum et res et iura et bona Ecclesie supradicte, et non tractare vel esse in consilio vel assensu vel facto quo vos aut aliquis successorum vestrorum amictatis aut amictat vitam vel membrum [au]t mentem vel intellectum, vel quod patiamini aut patiatur aliquis eorumdem successorum malam captionem aut dampnum vel iniuriam aliquam in personis vel rebus. Et si scivero aliquem predicta vel aliquod predictorum facere volentem resistam ei pro posse et ipsum vobis et successoribus vestris quam citius potero lingua, nuntio vel scriptura nuntiabo et manifestabo; et dictam fidelitatem in perpetuum et omnia supradicta attendere et observare et facere promicto vobis, ut dictum est recipientibus, sub pena duorum milium librarum Pisane monete. Quam penam pro singulis capitulis vobis, ut dictum est recipientibus, dare promicto si commicteretur et predicta omnia non observarentur; et ea soluta vel commissa predicta firma tenere et reficere vobis eodem modo recipientibus, et resarcire omnia dampna et interesse et expensas que et quas pro dicto censu seu pensione si cessatum fuerit in solvendo, et aliis predictis dixeritis vos aut sindicus Ecclesie dicte dixerit se substinuisse vel fecisse. Obligans me et meos heredes et bonam omnia presentia et futura in predictis omnibus et pro eis vobis recipientibus ut dictum est. Et predicta facio volens emologare laudum et arbitrium latum inter vos et Ecclesiam Vulterranam, ex parte una, et dictum Rainerium, ex parte altera, per venerabilem patrem dominum Octavianum Sancte Marie in Via Lata diaconem cardinalem; de quo laudo est publico instrumentum factum manu Iohannis notarii de Campulo. Renumptians exceptioni non habitarum et non receptarum rerum dictarum in emphytheosim, ut dictum est, et non debiti census et non factarum promissionum et obligationum dictarum et rei dicto modo non geste, fori privilegio et omni iuris et legis auxilio.

Jacopo Paganelli accord, with my hand on the Gospel of God, to be faithful to you and your successors and to said Church, and as far as possible, to save the person of yours and of your successors, and the goods and rights of the aforementioned Church, and not carry out any action that could cause you or your successors to lose your life, a part of your body, mind, or intellect, or that would cause suffering through unjust imprisonment or damage or injury to person or property. And if I come to know that someone intends to do any of these actions I will try to prevent it and I will denounce it as soon as possible to you and your successors by voice, by messenger or by writing; and I promise to you that I will fully respect this oath of loyalty, at a penalty of 2000 lire of Pisan currency. This penalty I promise to pay to you for every single matter, if it happens that I will not observe all these things; and, having paid it, to comply with all these conditions in the way indicated, and to compensate for any damage, expense, or interest that you or one of your associates will communicate to have sustained as a result of the non-payment of this penalty. And I do all these things wishing to respect the praise pronounced between you and the Church of Volterra, on the one hand, and I, Ranieri, on the other, by the venerable father Lord Ottaviano, cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Via Lata; from which praise exists publicly in the deed made by the notary Giovanni di Campolo. Renouncing the exception of the things that were not had and not received in emphyteusis, as mentioned, and of the fee that is not owed and of the promises and obligations not made and of the thing not conducted in the aforementioned way, at the discretion of the court and every support of right and law. Act in the church of Casole, present the venerable father Lord Mainetto, by the grace of God Bishop of Fiesole, and Lord Ghibellino, Prior of S. Martino of Gangalandi; Lord Diedi, judge and son of Iacopo of Florence; Lord Alberto, parish priest of Gerfalco; Lord Dono, Prior of S. Michele Bertelde of Florence and many other witnesses. Year of the Lord 1263, sixth indiction, May 30th. (Notarial mark) I, Lamberto, notary and son of Braccio di Francobaro, have witnessed all the aforementioned things and all these things by mandate and by the will of the said elected member and Lord Ranieri Piccolino of which I have written and published.

the scolari family at the head of the bishopric of volterra Actum in ecclesia Casulana presentibus venerabili patre domino Mainetto Dei gratia episcopo Fesulano, domino Ghibellino priore Sancti Martini de Gangalandi, domino Diedi iudice quondam Iacoppi de Florentia, domino Alberto plebano de Gerfalco, domino Dono priore Sancti Micchaelis Bertelde de Florentia et aliis pluribus testibus vocatis et rogatis. Anno domini millesimo ducentesimo sexagesimo tertio, indictione via, xxxo maii. (SN). Ego Lambertus notarius filius Braccii Francobari predictis omnibus interfui et ea omnia de mandato et voluntate dictorum domini electi et domini Rainerii Piccholini scripsi et publicavi.

195

196

Jacopo Paganelli

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Florence, Archivio di Stato di Firenze [ASF] Capitoli, 30 Capitoli, Appendice, 44 Diplomatico Passignano, S. Michele, 24 November 1295 Diplomatico S. Frediano in Cestello, 28 June 1266 Siena, Archivio di Stato di Siena [ASS] Consiglio Generale, Deliberazioni, 4 Diplomatico Riformagioni, 10 August 1250 Diplomatico Riformagioni, 11 June 1254 Diplomatico Riformagioni, 31 August 1254 Volterra, Archivio Diocesano di Volterra [ADV] Diplomatico, 496 Diplomatico, 497 Diplomatico, 500 Diplomatico, 501 Diplomatico, 512 Diplomatico, 760 Volterra, Biblioteca Guarnacci di Volterra [BGV] MS 5672, II MS 8491, III MS 8494, III

Primary Sources Villani, Giovanni, Nuova Cronica, ed.  by Giuseppe Porta (Parma: Fondazione Pietro Bembo, 1991)

Secondary Sources Bastianoni, Curzio, Giovanni Cherubini, and Giuliano Pinto, eds, La Toscana ai tempi di Arnolfo (Florence: Olschki, 2005) Canaccini, Federico, Ghibellini e ghibellinismo in Toscana da Montaperti a Campaldino (1260–1289) (Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo, 2009) Collavini, Simone Maria, ‘I signori rurali in Italia centrale (secoli xii–metà xiv): profilo sociale e forme di interazione’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Moyen Âge, 123.2 (2011), 301–18 Cortese, Maria Elena, ‘I destini di un gruppo dominante nell’età della crescita: la media aristocrazia del territorio fiorentino (1150–1250 ca.)’, in Cambiamento economico e mobilità sociale nella Toscana bassomedievale (xii–xv sec) (Rome: Viella, in press)

the scolari family at the head of the bishopric of volterra

197

Davidsohn, Robert, Storia di Firenze, vol. ii (Florence: Sansoni, 1956) Faini, Enrico, ‘I sei anni dimenticati: Spunti per una riconsiderazione del governo ghibellino di Firenze, 1260–1266’, in Tra storia e letteratura: Il parlamento di Empoli del 1260, ed.  by Vanna Arrighi and Giuliano Pinto (Florence: Olschki, 2012), pp. 29–49 Feller, Laurent, Paysans et seigneurs au Moyen Âge, viiie–xve siècle (Paris: Armand Colin, 2017) Gazzini, Marina, ‘I Disciplinati, la milizia dei frati Gaudenti, il comune di Bologna e la pace cittadina: statuti a confronto (1261–1265)’, Bollettino della Deputazione di Storia Patria per l’Umbria, 101 (2004), 419–37 Kamp, Norbert, ‘Cacciaconti, Cacciaconte’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 15 (1972), Najemy, John M., Storia di Firenze, 1200–1376 (Turin: Einaudi, 2014) Paganelli, Jacopo, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”: Un profilo di Alberto vescovo di Volterra (1261–1269)’, Rassegna Volterrana, 93 (2016), 109–56 —— ,  ‘“Infra nostrum episcopatum et comitatum”: Alcuni caratteri del principato vescovile di Volterra (ix–xiii sec.)’, Rassegna Volterrana, 92 (2015), 89–156 —— ,  ‘Ubertini, Ranieri’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 97 (2020), Pinto, Giuliano, and Paolo Pirillo, eds, Lontano dalle città: Il Valdarno di Sopra nei secoli xii–xiii (Roma: Viella, 2005) Plesner, Johan, L’emigrazione dalla campagna alla città libera di Firenze nel xii secolo (Firenze: Papafava, 1979) Raveggi, Sergio, ‘Le famiglie di parte ghibellina nella classe dirigente della città di Firenze durante il xiii secolo’, in I ceti dirigenti dell’età comunale nei secoli xii e xiii (Pisa: Pacini, 1982), pp. 287–99 —— ,  ‘Il regime ghibellino’, in Sergio Raveggi, Massimo Tarassi, Daniela Medici, and Patrizia Parenti, Ghibellini, guelfi e popolo grasso: I detentori del potere politico a Firenze nella seconda metà del Dugento (Florence: La Nuova Italia 1978), pp. 1–72 —— , ‘Siena nell’Italia dei guelfi e dei ghibellini’, in Fedeltà ghibellina, affari guelfi: Saggi e riletture intorno alla storia di Siena fra Due e Trecento, ed. by Gabriella Piccinni (Pisa: Pacini, 2008), pp. 29–62 Scharf, Gian Paolo G., Potere e società ad Arezzo nel xiii secolo (1214–1312) (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2013) Varanini, Gian Maria, ‘Strategie familiari per la carriera ecclesiastica (Italia, sec. xiii–xv)’, in La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano, vol. iii: Il mondo ecclesiastico (secoli xii–xv), ed. by Sandro Carocci and Amedeo De Vincentiis (Rome: Viella, 2017), pp. 361–98 Vasina, Augusto, ‘Ubaldini, Ottaviano degli’, Enciclopedia Dantesca (1970), Wickham, Chris, ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’, in Strutture e trasformazioni della signoria rurale nei secoli x–xiii, ed.  by Cinzio Violante and Gerhard Dilcher (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996), pp. 343–409

Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324): A New Bishop for a New Era in Salamanca Fernando Gutiérrez Baños

I

n the chapel of San Nicolás of the Old Cathedral of Salamanca (i.e. the south apse chapel of this magnificent Romanesque building erected between the mid-twelfth century and the early thirteenth century and decorated in the Gothic period) there is an episcopal tomb that has no epitaph (see Figure 9.1). The book of anniversaries of the cathedral, compiled in its present form at the beginning of the sixteenth century, refers to it in the entry of 30 January in the following terms: ‘Por don Pedro, obispo de Salamanca, que yaze en la capilla de sant Niculás en vn arco como entran a la mano derecha, en vn monumento figurado’ (For don Pedro, Bishop of Salamanca, who lies in the chapel of San Nicolás beneath an arch to the right as one enters, inside a figured monument).1 There were many bishops named Pedro in Salamanca in the Middle Ages, but since the seventeenth century this niche tomb has been ascribed to the one who flourished in the early fourteenth century. Stylistic comparisons not only of the architectural layout of the niche, but also of the sculptures of the sarcophagus and recumbent effigy and of the paintings displayed on the soffit of the arched niche, confirm this ascription.2 But the question is: Who was Bishop Pedro? 1 2

Salamanca, ACS, Caj. 67, leg. 3, núm. 1, fol. 60v. About the tomb of Bishop Pedro, see Gómez-Moreno, Catálogo monumental de España:

Fernando Gutiérrez Baños ([email protected]) is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Art History of the University of Valladolid, in Spain. He specializes in art of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and develops his research within the G. I. R. IDINTAR (Acknowledged Research Group Identity and Artistic Interchanges). Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 199–221 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120618 BREPOLS

200

Fernando Gutiérrez Baños

Figure 9.1. ‘Tomb of Pedro Pérez de Monroy (d. 1322–1324), Bishop of Salamanca’, Salamanca, Old Cathedral, chapel of San Nicolás. c. 1330–1340. Photo by the author.

Onomastic uses of medieval Iberia make it difficult to provide an answer. In this territory and period, a standard full name was usually composed of three elements. First, the given name, which is the name conferred to an individual upon baptism: in this case Pedro. Second, the patronymic, which was formed by adding the suffix ez to the name of the father: in this instance, Pérez, which means son of Pedro. Third, and quite often introduced by the preposition ‘de’ (of ), the family name, which distinguishes each family from others and might refer to its place of origin, the location of their core properties, or even to an unusual feature of an ancestor. In this instance, de Monroy refers to the territory whose Provincia de Salamanca, i, 120, 131; Gutiérrez Baños, Aportación al estudio de la pintura de estilo gótico lineal en Castilla y León, ii, 164–65; Ruiz Maldonado, ‘Imágenes de lo sagrado. Imágenes de lo humano’, pp. 214–15. Gómez-Moreno relates its carvings to the ones displayed in the tombs of Rodrigo Díaz (d. 1339), Bishop of Salamanca, and Diego López (d. 1341 or 1342), Archdeacon of Ledesma, in the church of Salamanca, in the very same building, considering even the possibility of the identity of authorship. The layout of the tomb of Bishop Pedro is identical to the one of the tomb of Diego López.

Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324)

201

lordship belonged to the family. So, Pedro Pérez de Monroy means ‘Pedro, the son of Pedro, of the family of the lords of Monroy’. The problem is that there are many exceptions to the rule, particularly when it comes to ecclesiastical personnel. Especially in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, it was quite usual to omit their family names and even their patronymics; they were mentioned only through their given names (quite often abbreviated), together with the position they occupied. Our bishop never appears in the records as Pedro Pérez de Monroy. He appears as ‘Pedro, obispo de Salamanca’ or as ‘P., obispo de Salamanca’.3 This is why reconstructing the identity and the memory of Portuguese and Spanish bishops of this period is a real challenge.

Historical Background: The Bishopric of Salamanca in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries The see of Salamanca is recorded for the first time in 589, in the period of the Visigothic rule over the whole Iberian peninsula.4 This period is characterized by the persistence of the administrative and ecclesiastical structures of the already disappeared Roman Empire, so that the see of Salmantica (current Salamanca), a city of the former Roman province of Lusitania, was then a suffragan of the metropolitan see of Emerita (current Mérida), the capital city of this province and one of the most important cities of Roman Hispania. This is proved by a record of 666. This situation was completely altered by the Muslim conquest of 711. The bishops of Salamanca disappear from the records for more than one hundred years. When they are mentioned again in documents of the ninth and tenth centuries, it is clear that their see is a merely nominal see whose titulars live in the courts of the kings of Asturias and León, the emergent Christian powers of northwestern Iberia, who had no effective control over the territory of Salamanca, now for the most part a deserted city. The scene changed after the conquest of Toledo in 1085 by Leonese King Alfonso VI. Then, the frontier with al-Andalus, the Muslim realm of the Iberian peninsula, moved further south, bringing stability to the until then southern territories of the kingdoms of León and Castile and facilitating the repopulation 3 E.g., in documents issued by King Alfonso XI between 1315 and 1320; see Colección documental de Alfonso XI, ed. by González Crespo, nos 33–34, 36, 47, 49, 54, 70, 73. 4 For a brief summary of the history of the bishopric of Salamanca, see Marcos, ‘Salamanca, Diócesis de’, pp. 2137–40.

Fernando Gutiérrez Baños

202

of these territories. In this context, the city of Salamanca, together with its episcopal see, was formally re-established in 1102 by Count Raimundo de Borgoña, son-inlaw of King Alfonso VI as husband of his daughter Urraca, who was to become Queen of León. But geopolitical and geo-ecclesiastical contexts now differed completely from the ones that justified the first existence of the see of Salamanca. Mérida, still a Muslim city, had lost a great deal of its former prominence, so that the see of Salamanca was soon declared a suffragan of the new and powerful metropolitan see of Santiago de Compostela, in the region of Galicia, created over the presumed tomb of the apostle St James the Greater, discovered in the ninth century. This was formally approved in 1124 by a bull of Pope Callixtus II.5 The dependence of Salamanca on Santiago de Compostela is a crucial issue in the history of the bishopric of Salamanca. Quite often, clerics of Galician origin considered Salamanca as an appropriate place to make their careers, obtaining positions and benefices to the detriment of local clerics, who were frustrated in their aspirations.6 In fact, many Galician clerics became bishops of Salamanca in this period, and some of them became later archbishops of Santiago de Compostela. This was a source of constant confrontation within the chapter of Salamanca. Circumstances reached such a critical point in the thirteenth century that in 1245 the Castilian cardinal Gil Torres had to dictate some constitutions about how to confer ecclesiastical positions in Salamanca in order to achieve a certain degree of balance between the two factions of the chapter.7 Consequently, local clerics became more prominent in the late thirteenth century, but the bishopric of Salamanca was regarded as an opaque and oligarchic one. Bishop Pedro became its head in 1310.

A Confusing Historiography The first history of the church of Salamanca, entitled Historia de las antigüedades de la ciudad de Salamanca, was published in 1606. Its author, Gil González Dávila, was by then a member of the chapter of Salamanca, and he was even responsible for the archive of the cathedral of Salamanca. González Dávila later became the official chronicler for the Kings of Spain, Felipe III and Felipe IV. In 5

Historia compostelana, ed. by Falque Rey, pp. 429–31. Beltrán de Heredia, Cartulario de la Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 59–83. 7 Colección documental de la catedral de Salamanca, ed. by Guadalupe Beraza and others, no. 214. 6

Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324)

203

spite of his presumed authority and of the certain fact that he had full access to the documents of Salamanca, his works display plenty of mistakes and inaccuracies that unfortunately modern authors repeat because they assume González Dávila to be an authoritative source. Concerning Bishop Pedro, González Dávila presented him as certain brother Pedro, a Dominican friar, who was elected by the chapter after the death of Bishop Alfonso in 1309 and who died in 1315.8 This is all incorrect. The only possible ground for considering him a friar, though not necessarily a Dominican friar, is a bull issued by Pope Clement V that, according to González Dávila, begins ‘Dudum nobis fratris Petri episcopi Salamantini petitio continebat […]’ (Recently a request to us by friar Pedro, Bishop of Salamanca, contained […]). However, this text was miscopied. It actually reads ‘Dvdum oblata nobis venerabilis fratris nostri Petri, episcopi Salamantini, petitio continebat […]’ (Recently a request presented to us by our venerable brother Pedro, Bishop of Salamanca, contained […]).9 It is clear, in any case, that the word frater is used in this context in a spiritual sense (and González Dávila should have known it). More than a century later, Bernardo Dorado, a priest of Salamanca, wrote a new history of the church of Salamanca: the Compendio histórico de la ciudad de Salamanca, published in 1776. Dorado worked more rigorously, checking the documents carefully. This allowed him to determine correctly the tenure of Bishop Pedro between 1310 and 1324,10 but he continued to refer to him as brother Pedro, Dominican friar, elected by the chapter after the death of Bishop Alfonso.11 Even though after the publication in the late nineteenth century of the regestum of Pope Clement  V some scholars, such as Konrad Eubel, Vicente Beltrán de Heredia, and the authors of the Diccionario de Historia Eclesiástica de España, no longer referred to this bishop as brother Pedro, Dominican friar, it is still common to find high-quality academic studies referring to him as ‘brother Pedro, O.P.’. However, neither his seal, of which several impressions are known (see Figure 9.2), nor any original record called him ‘don fray Pedro’ (as would be 8

González Dávila, Historia de las antigüedades de la ciudad de Salamanca, pp. 248–64. Documentos del Clemente V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed. by Domínguez Sánchez, no. 1357. 10 He is last recorded in 1322; see Guglieri Navarro, Catálogo de sellos de la Sección de Sigilografía del Archivo Histórico Nacional, ii (1974), no. 1174. Bernardo, his successor, was transferred from the see of Ciudad Rodrigo in 1324. 11 Dorado, Compendio histórico de la ciudad de Salamanca, pp. 243–47. Dorado even stated that ‘brother Pedro’ came from the convent of San Esteban, the Dominican convent of the city of Salamanca. 9

Fernando Gutiérrez Baños

204

Figure 9.2. ‘Seal of Pedro Pérez de Monroy (d. 1322–24), Bishop of Salamanca (impression dated 1322)’, España, Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Archivo Histórico Nacional, SIGIL-SELLO, C.81, N.1. Reproduced with permission.

the case if he were a friar). On the contrary, he appears always as ‘don Pedro’. This, together with the information about his nomination, makes clear that he was a secular cleric.

Family Ties: From Brother Pedro, Dominican Friar, to Pedro Pérez de Monroy, Secular Cleric Two unnoticed references published in the second half of the twentieth century provided the key for a competent identification of Bishop Pedro. In 1970 Beltrán de Heredia, writing about the University of Salamanca, said that the newly appointed bishop gained ‘otras concesiones para Nuño Pérez, su hermano, abad de Santander y arcediano de Campos’ (other grants for Nuño Pérez, his brother, Abbot of Santander and Archdeacon of Campos).12 In 1999 Olivera 12

Beltrán de Heredia, Cartulario de la Universidad de Salamanca, p. 115.

Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324)

205

Arranz, writing about a hospital founded by the Abbot of Santander in the city of Valladolid, referred to a document of 1314 that mentions Pedro, Bishop of Salamanca, and Fernán Pérez de Monroy, cupbearer of the dowager Queen María de Molina, as brothers of this personage.13 Moreover, the records about his nomination as Bishop of Salamanca by Pope Clement V tell us about the positions he held before becoming bishop, which links him to the Castilian city of Plasencia.14 His nomination took place not following an election by the chapter, as stated by González Dávila and Dorado, but after a personal decision by the pope. These testimonies allow us to identify Bishop Pedro as a brother of Nuño Pérez de Monroy, Abbot of Santander (a secular church), one of the most outstanding figures of the political scene of the early fourteenth century in Castile. This is also confirmed by the documents kept in the Cistercian abbey of las Huelgas, of Valladolid (the institution that supervised the aforementioned hospital),15 and by the heraldry displayed on the seal of the bishop, poorly preserved on a seal impression dated 1322, which is similar to the heraldic bearings of the Monroy family (a shield quartering castles and vairs).16 So, the full name of Bishop Pedro was Pedro Pérez de Monroy, brother of Nuño Pérez de Monroy (who died in 1326), Abbot of Santander, and Fernán Pérez de Monroy (who died probably in 1351 after dictating his will), Lord of Monroy, a village in the territory of the aforementioned Castilian city of Plasencia, where the whole family was rooted.17

13 14

Olivera Arranz, ‘La hospitalidad privada en el Valladolid bajomedieval’, p. 328. See below, note 29.

15 Valladolid, AMSMRHV, Carp. 1, núm. 11; Carp. 1, núm. 14. These are the aforementioned 1314 document and the 1318 will of Nuño Pérez de Monroy. I am indebted to my colleagues Mauricio Herrero Jiménez, Irene Ruiz Albi, and Francisco Javier Molina de la Torre for facilitating my access to their in-progress edition of this archival collection. 16

Guglieri Navarro, Catálogo de sellos de la Sección de Sigilografía del Archivo Histórico Nacional, ii, no. 1174, describing this seal impression, mentions at the feet of the effigy of the bishop a quartered escutcheon displaying castles, which is compatible with the arms described above (its condition does not allow further remarks). Escutcheons painted on his tomb, along the rim of its arched niche, are probably an addition of the restoration carried out in 1951 following the model of the tomb of Diego López, Archdeacon of Ledesma: no author mentions them before 1951, and the way in which they are presented invites suspicion (devoid of heraldic bearings and surmounted by red ecclesiastical hats, unfair for a bishop and strange, in any case, at such an early date). 17 About the Monroy family, see Ávila Seoane, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces’; Sierra Simón, ‘Mayorazgos de Monroy’; Sierra Simón, ‘Estrategias matrimoniales de la casa de Monroy’.

Fernando Gutiérrez Baños

206

Map 9.1. The Iberian peninsula in the early fourteenth century, with major places cited in the text. Design by Francisco M. Morillo, according to the author.

The prominence of this family in the early fourteenth century relied completely on the role played by Nuño Pérez de Monroy.18 Nuño entered in the service of the royal court in the late thirteenth century, during the reign of King Sancho IV (1284–95), but he only came to the fore after the death of the monarch in 1295, when he became confessor, advisor, and chancellor of the dowager Queen María de Molina, a sort of spiritual and political assistant of the so-called ‘Reina Prudente’ (Wise Queen). María de Molina had to rule over Castile during the successive minorities of her son Fernando IV (1295–1312) and her grandson 18

About Nuño Pérez de Monroy, see Velo y Nieto, ‘Don Nuño Pérez de Monroy, abad de Santander’. A modern biography of this personage is much required. Competent information about him is to be found scattered in works dealing with María de Molina or with the reigns of Sancho IV, Fernando IV, and Alfonso XI.

Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324)

207

Alfonso XI (1312–50), working for the benefit of the monarchy and the kingdom against other members of the royal family and some nobles, who battled among themselves and against her to obtain the guardianship of the corresponding child-king and the control of the kingdom.19 In this arduous task, Nuño Pérez de Monroy became the main support of the dowager Queen María de Molina. Considering this, it is not strange that Nuño’s brothers reached high positions in the entourage of the queen: Fernán Pérez de Monroy became her cupbearer, and Pedro Pérez de Monroy, who was Archdeacon of Plasencia and canon of Sigüenza before becoming Bishop of Salamanca, acted as Castilian ambassador at the papal court, newly established in the city of Avignon. The origins of this family remain obscure. Velo y Nieto, relying on the surveys of ancient genealogists, counted among their ancestors Fernando Yáñez, a Galician noble who flourished in the second third of the twelfth century outstandingly serving the Leonese Queen Urraca (1109–26) and Emperor Alfonso VII (1126–57), and Pedro Fernández (d. 1184), supposedly a son of the former, who founded the prestigious military order of Santiago.20 None of this can be confirmed in present times.21 The father of the Pérez de Monroy siblings was a Pedro Fernández who is mentioned in 1287, when he, together with his sons Fernán and Nuño, received the place of Monroy from the city council of Plasencia.22 This was a standard procedure: to facilitate the population of scarcely inhabited areas, city councils granted some places to notable families. Grants were later confirmed by the monarchs. In 1309 King Fernando IV confirmed the lordship of Monroy in favour of Fernán Pérez de Monroy.23 On the basis of the lordship of Monroy, Fernán Pérez de Monroy established a mayorazgo attached to the lineage.24 Nuño, the true pillar of the family, contributed substantially to this mayorazgo in his successive wills of 1318 and 1326,25 through the transfer 19

Gaibrois de Ballesteros, María de Molina. Velo y Nieto, ‘Don Nuño Pérez de Monroy, abad de Santander’, pp. 319–26. 21 About Fernando Yáñez, see Barton, The Aristocracy in Twelfth­Century León and Castile, pp. 36–37. Fernando Yáñez’s only known son is Pelayo Curvo. On his part, Pedro Fernández is now regarded as a son of Fernando García de Hita. 22 Sierra Simón, ‘Mayorazgos de Monroy’, pp. 263–64. 23 Ávila Seoane, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces’, pp. 133–34 and 159–60. 24 A mayorazgo, which must be formally instituted, is an ensemble of properties and rights to be inherited by the eldest son of an aristocratic family without the possibility of dividing it, as these properties and rights are considered substantial to the identity and to the persistence of the lineage. 25 Ávila Seoane, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces’, pp. 136–37; Sierra Simón, ‘Mayorazgos de 20

208

Figure 9.3. ‘House of Nuño Pérez de Monroy (d. 1326), Abbot of Santander’, Plasencia (Cáceres). Photo by the author.

Fernando Gutiérrez Baños

Figure 9.4. ‘Castle of the Monroy family’, Monroy (Cáceres). Photo by the author.

of his house in Plasencia and the lordship of Valverde de la Vera, the last one confirmed by King Fernando IV in 1303 after it had been granted by the city council of Plasencia in 1301.26 The house of Nuño Pérez de Monroy in Plasencia, partially preserved in the much-remodelled Casa de las Dos Torres, and the castle of Monroy, reworked in the fifteenth century, are still witnesses of this mayorazgo and of the strength of the Monroy family in early fourteenth-century Castile (see Figures 9.3–9.4).27 The Monroy family would be expected to rise up to the highest rank of the Castilian nobility, but in the last instance, they were people of Queen María de Molina, who died in 1321, not people of King Fernando  IV or of King Alfonso  XI, even though they worked for their advantage. Moreover, the adherence of Fernán Pérez de Monroy the Younger, the son and successor of the first Lord of Monroy, to King Pedro I during the civil war that shocked Castile in the mid-fourteenth century (a war that ended with the assassination of the monarch and the installation of a new dynasty), together with the lack of male descent, relegated the role of the Monroy family to one of a regional nobility established in Plasencia and, following, probably, the bishop here discussed, in Salamanca, where some of its members became notable.28 Monroy’, pp. 238–42. The unpublished 1318 will is in Valladolid, AMSMRHV, Carp. 1, núm. 14. 26 Ávila Seoane, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces’, pp. 134–35 and 158–59. 27 About the castle, see Velo y Nieto, Castillos de Extremadura, pp.  371–95; Cooper, Castillos señoriales en la Corona de Castilla, i.2, 540–41. 28 Ávila Seoane, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces’, pp. 137–47. The heraldry of the Monroy

Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324)

209

1310: The Nomination of Pedro Pérez de Monroy In 1309 Alfonso de las Asturias, Bishop of Salamanca, passed away after a tenure of only three years. On 11 February 1310, Pope Clement V appointed Pedro Pérez de Monroy as the new Bishop of Salamanca.29 By then, the brother of the Abbot of Santander was at the papal court. According to Beltrán de Heredia, he had travelled to Avignon as Castilian ambassador to negotiate an embarrassing question that from time to time was a source of discomfort and even conflict between the Castilian monarchy and the papacy: the collection of the tercias reales (royal thirds).30 Tercias reales were a portion of the tithes that were conferred by the popes to the Kings of Castile to contribute to the funding of the war against the Muslims in the Iberian peninsula.31 Tercias reales were first granted in 1247 by Pope Innocent IV to King Fernando III to support the conquest of Seville. Such a grant was normally made for periods of three years. However, two things happened that turned this favour into a troublesome issue. First, the Castilian kings tended to renew these grants automatically, without waiting for papal approval. Second, the Castilian kings employed them not only to finance the war against the Muslims, but also for the most unexpected purposes: in fact, they began to consider the tercias reales as an income of which they could dispose at their will. This was possible because there was usually a passive attitude on the part of the popes, but in the early fourteenth century Boniface VIII and Clement V tried to gain control over the tercias reales under the threat of excommunication and interdict (which, in fact, were occasionally decreed).32 Beyond this, the family is widely represented in the ancient monuments of Salamanca; see Álvarez Villar, De heráldica salmantina, pp. 46, 100, 195, 318, 326, 332. 29 Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed.  by Domínguez Sánchez, nos 612–17. 30 Beltrán de Heredia, Cartulario de la Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 114–15. The author presents Pedro Pérez de Monroy as accompanying Juan Núñez de Lara (whom he names Juan Pérez de Lara by mistake), but the embassy of the latter took place later this very same year; see below, note 36. The author also merges tercias reales and décima, which were different incomes of ecclesiastical origin. 31 They were not one third of the tithes, but two ninths of them. Tithes were divided into three equal parts: one for the clergy, one for the fabric of the churches, and one for the bishops. The parts for the clergy and for the fabric of the churches were divided again into three equal parts, and it was one third of each of these two parts that was conferred to the Kings of Castile. About the structure and origins of the tercias reales, see Linehan, The Spanish Church and the Papacy, pp. 111–13; Aldea, ‘Tercias reales’. 32 Nieto Soria, Las relaciones monarquía­episcopado castellano, i, 307–21; Ladero Quesada, Fiscalidad y poder real en Castilla, pp. 191–203.

Fernando Gutiérrez Baños

210

beginning of the fourteenth century was a period of intense contacts between Castile and the papal court.33 The Iberian kingdom required extra funding to finance the projected Castilian-Aragonese offensive against the Muslim Kingdom of Granada that was to start in 1309. This very same year Clement V granted the décima for a period of three years starting on St John’s feast.34 He also granted the cruzada.35 However, the campaign failed after the conquest of Gibraltar in September 1309, and this moved the pope to reconsider his grants. In this context, some Castilian embassies are well known. In 1309, the one by the Bishop of Zamora, Gonzalo Rodríguez Osorio, and a knight from Córdoba, Pay Arias de Castro, Lord of Espejo and cupbearer of Queen Constanza of Portugal, wife of King Fernando IV, obtained the décima and the cruzada for the war against Granada. In 1310, the one by a noble of the highest rank, Juan Núñez de Lara, secured papal support for the apparently frustrated campaign.36 For Pedro Pérez de Monroy we must rely on the testimony of Beltrán de Heredia. By nominating Pedro Pérez de Monroy, Clement  V was supporting the dowager Queen María de Molina against other members of the royal family, following in the traditional policy of the papacy with regard to Castile.37 Upon his nomination, Clement V granted an unusual amount of privileges in favour of the new Bishop of Salamanca. To begin with, it was Clement V himself who ordained Pedro Pérez de Monroy bishop. On 11 March 1310, one month after the appointment, Clement V granted one hundred days of indulgence to those 33

This has been thoroughly analysed by Linehan, ‘The Church, the Economy and the Reconquista in Early Fourteenth-Century Castile’. 34 Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed.  by Domínguez Sánchez, nos 448–49. The décima was one tenth of all ecclesiastical revenues. While tercias reales were collected by officers of the king, décima was collected by papal appointees, which made more difficult its seizure by the kings (as had happened with tercias reales). About décima and its 1309 grant, see Nieto Soria, Las relaciones monarquía­episcopado castellano, i, 322–32; Ladero Quesada, Fiscalidad y poder real en Castilla, pp. 203–07. 35 Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed.  by Domínguez Sánchez, no. 453. The cruzada was an appeal for donations benefited with indulgences. About cruzada and its 1309 grant, see Goñi Gaztambide, Historia de la bula de cruzada en España, pp. 265–81; Nieto Soria, Las relaciones monarquía­episcopado castellano, i, 332–35; Ladero Quesada, Fiscalidad y poder real en Castilla, pp. 207–09. 36 González Mínguez, Fernando IV de Castilla, pp. 213, 227–28. These embassies had also other purposes: to obtain the dispensation for the projected marriage between Prince Jaime of Aragon and Princess Leonor of Castile (1309) and to stop the intended trial of the late Boniface VIII (1310). 37 Crónica del rey don Fernando, ed. by Benavides, pp. 83–84.

Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324)

211

contributing to the works of the cathedral of Salamanca for the next ten years. On this very same day, Clement V granted Pedro Pérez de Monroy the faculty to appoint two canons in Salamanca, quite sure to allow the new bishop to have some people in his confidence in a see to which he was completely alien. Pedro Pérez de Monroy immediately appointed his brother Nuño, who, beyond being Abbot of Santander and Archdeacon of Campos in the church of Palencia, held canonries in six cathedral churches and one collegiate church and a benefice in Galisteo. Finally, Clement V granted Pedro Pérez de Monroy the faculty to concede one year and forty days of indulgence to those attending his first solemn Mass as bishop in the cathedral of Salamanca.38 However, if the nomination of Pedro Pérez de Monroy is significant for its meaning in positive terms, it is much more significant for its meaning in negative terms. By nominating him, Clement V was not only supporting a certain profile of bishop (a cleric from a noble family belonging to the circle of the Castilian governing class). He was also rejecting another profile of bishop. Indeed, the nomination of Pedro Pérez de Monroy was made to the detriment of Diego Fernández, Bishop of Lamego, who had been unanimously elected as the new bishop by the chapter of Salamanca after the death of Alfonso de las Asturias in 1309.39 In fact, Clement V’s decision reflects the dichotomy noticed by Nieto Soria in the social provenance of Castilian bishops of this period: bishops from the entourage of the monarchy on the one hand and bishops from the local oligarchies on the other hand.40 Diego Fernández was clearly a representative of the local oligarchy that took control over the chapter of Salamanca in the late thirteenth century. His career was spectacular: in 1286 he was canon; in 1288 he was precentor; in 1289 he was Archdeacon of Alba; in 1291 he was dean.41 As soon as there was a vacancy in a superior position, Diego Fernández occupied it immediately. Moreover, he had benefices in the churches of Santiago de Compostela and Ciudad Rodrigo.42 His career was clearly intended to culminate with the bishopric of Salamanca. However, he never succeeded. In 1306, when, after a couple of decades, there 38 Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed.  by Domínguez Sánchez, nos 642–45, 654, 1044. 39 Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed.  by Domínguez Sánchez, no. 612. 40 Nieto Soria, Las relaciones monarquía­episcopado castellano, i, 474–78. 41 Colección documental de la catedral de Salamanca, ed. by Guadalupe Beraza and others, nos 411, 417, 423, 432. 42 Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed.  by Domínguez Sánchez, no. 159.

Fernando Gutiérrez Baños

212

was at last a vacancy in the bishopric, the divided chapter elected two different candidates: Arnaldo López de Tejo, Archdeacon of Medina, and Diego Fernández, dean. Both travelled to the papal court to claim their rights. Arnaldo López de Tejo died before reaching the Curia. Diego Fernández arrived only to be informed that the pope had decided to nominate to the see of Salamanca Alfonso de las Asturias, Bishop of Lamego, in Portugal (but within the same ecclesiastical province of Santiago de Compostela).43 As a consolation prize, Diego Fernández was appointed Bishop of Lamego.44 Diego Fernández had to be ordained priest and bishop at the Curia because at the time of his nomination he was merely a deacon in terms of ecclesiastical orders.45 In 1307, still at the papal court, he was invited to go to his church, but it seems that he resided instead in Salamanca: in 1308 he was authorized to visit his church through proctors for a period of four years.46 The death of Alfonso de las Asturias in 1309, only three years after their respective appointments as Bishops of Salamanca and Lamego, granted Diego Fernández a new opportunity. This time Diego Fernández was unanimously elected by the chapter of Salamanca. However, Clement V rejected him: ‘non uitio persone sue, sed certis aliis de causis’ (not because of any defect in his person, but for some other reasons).47 A new consolation prize was waiting for him: in 1311 Diego Fernández was appointed Bishop of Zamora, a city very close to Salamanca, where it seems he continued to reside.48 He died in 1320 or 1321, without achieving his ambition.49 I can only speculate how the bishop first of 43

Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed.  by Domínguez Sánchez, no. 101. 44 Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed.  by Domínguez Sánchez, nos 107–11. 45 Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed.  by Domínguez Sánchez, no. 133. 46 Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed.  by Domínguez Sánchez, nos 313, 319–20. Costa, História do bispado e cidade de Lamego, pp. 156–58, agrees in considering that he was absent from Lamego. 47 Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed.  by Domínguez Sánchez, no. 612. 48 Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed.  by Domínguez Sánchez, nos 824–29. In 1311 his house in the street Escuderos of Salamanca is mentioned, and in 1313 he purchases some properties in La Orbada, a village close to Salamanca; see Catálogo de documentos del Archivo Catedralicio de Salamanca, ed. by Marcos Rodríguez, nos 488, 493. 49 Diego Fernández, Bishop of Zamora, is last recorded in 1320; see Colección documental de Alfonso XI, ed. by González Crespo, no. 73. Rodrigo, his successor, is mentioned in 1321,

Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324)

213

Figure 9.5. ‘Wall paintings of the tomb of Pedro Pérez de Monroy (d. 1322–24), Bishop of Salamanca’, Salamanca, Old Cathedral, chapel of San Nicolás. c. 1330–1340. Photo by the author.

Lamego, then of Zamora, and the corresponding Bishop of Salamanca coexisted in the very same city. Surprisingly, the first session of the national council held in Salamanca in 1310 to discuss the Templar question, presided by the Archbishop of Santiago de Compostela, was held ‘en las casas del obispo de Lamego que son en la dicha cibdad de Salamanca’ (in the house of the Bishop of Lamego that is in the aforementioned city of Salamanca).50 By the time this national council was held, Pedro Pérez de Monroy was still at the papal court. Probably he did not come to Castile until 1313, when he is mentioned in the chronicle of King Alfonso XI as arriving at the court.51 In 1315, already in in the national council of Palencia-Valladolid of 1321–22; see Álvarez Domínguez, Historia general civil y eclesiástica de la provincia de Zamora, p. 243. 50 Actas inéditas de siete concilios españoles, ed. by Fita y Colomé, p. 65. 51

Gran crónica de Alfonso XI, ed. by Catalán, i, 290. It is recorded that he attended the ecumenical council of Vienne of 1311–12 (see Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed. by Domínguez Sánchez, no. 965), and, conversely, he is absent in the acts of the national and provincial councils held in Salamanca and Zamora between 1310 and 1313; see Actas inéditas de siete concilios españoles, ed. by Fita y Colomé.

Fernando Gutiérrez Baños

214

Figure 9.6. ‘Tomb ascribed to Diego Fernández (d. 1320–21), Bishop of Lamego and Zamora and former Dean of Salamanca’, Salamanca, Old Cathedral, south transept. c. 1310–1320. Photo by the author.

Salamanca, Pedro Pérez de Monroy approved the expenses made by the chapter in support of the candidature of Diego Fernández for Bishop of Salamanca.52 Before this, whilst still at the papal court, Pedro Pérez de Monroy acted outstandingly in 1313 in two important issues related to the tercias reales. First, he mediated to guarantee the funding of the University of Salamanca, which relied on the tercias reales granted by the monarchs of the thirteenth century. When, as explained before, the popes of the early fourteenth century tried to gain control over the tercias reales, this university, one of the oldest and most prestigious in the Iberian peninsula, was about to disappear as a consequence of the disruption of the incomes supporting it. In 1313 Bishop Pedro guaranteed regular funding for the university on the basis of the tercias reales, not by royal privilege, but by papal privilege so that no future authorization would be required to collect the tercias 52

Catálogo de documentos del Archivo Catedralicio de Salamanca, ed. by Marcos Rodríguez, no. 501.

Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324)

215

reales of the diocese of Salamanca for the upkeep of its university.53 The other important issue in which Pedro Pérez de Monroy acted in 1313 was the removal of the interdict dictated over Castile by Pope Clement V to stop the unauthorized appropriation of the tercias reales that took place in the last years of the reign of Fernando IV, recently deceased.54 It was this happy news that brought him back to Castile in the autumn of 1313. In sum, it appears quite clear that Clement V battled the local oligarchy in Salamanca in favour of a new type of bishop. Clement V did this not only by twice rejecting Diego Fernández as Bishop of Salamanca (in 1306 and in 1310), but also by impeding any future rise of a comparable figure. In 1306, when both the archdeaconry of Medina and the deanery were vacated in Salamanca (the first one because of the death of Arnaldo López de Tejo and the second one because of the appointment of Diego Fernández as Bishop of Lamego), it was Clement V himself who appointed the new dignitaries: the new Archdeacon of Medina was García Pérez, a canon of Salamanca who was a familiar of a Castilian cardinal, and the new dean was Master Iohannes de Montedomeri, one of the physicians of the pope, who, in order to avoid residence, was authorized to act through vicars.55 These nominations must be regarded as early examples of the policy of papal reservations in the provision of ecclesiastical benefices that was to characterize the Avignon papacy.56 Bishop Pedro gained full control over the chapter of Salamanca, either by placing people in his confidence in key positions or by showing himself compliant with its most prominent members, as proved by his 1315 approval of the expenses made in favour of his undesired rival. In 1320, after the death of Master Iohannes de Montedomeri, it was Nuño, the bishop’s brother, who was appointed Dean of Salamanca.57 Bishop Pedro also introduced 53 Documentos del Clemente V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed. by Domínguez Sánchez, nos 1206, 1357. The process, which required further intervention in 1318, is fully analysed by Beltrán de Heredia, Cartulario de la Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 116–18. 54 Documentos del Clemente  V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed.  by Domínguez Sánchez, no. 1366. 55 Documentos del Clemente V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed. by Domínguez Sánchez, nos 93–94; Regestum Clementis papae V, ed. by monks of the Order of St Benedict, p. cxi. Vicars of the dean are widely mentioned in the chapter records preserved for the period 1317–18; see Los libros de actas capitulares de la Catedral de Salamanca, ed. by Vicente Baz, nos 62, 65, 69–70, 72, 80, 93, 95–96, 98, 101–02, 116–17, 120, 122–24, 134, 138. 56 Díaz Ibáñez, ‘La provisión pontificia de beneficios eclesiásticos en el reino de Castilla durante el periodo aviñonés’. 57 Catálogo de documentos del Archivo Catedralicio de Salamanca, ed. by Marcos Rodríguez, no. 507.

Fernando Gutiérrez Baños

216

into his chapter his nephew Ruy Fernández de Monroy, son of Fernán Pérez de Monroy the Elder, who was appointed portionist in 1318 as the starting point of a career that was to culminate in the position of Archdeacon of Alba, in which he is recorded in 1346.58

Epilogue: The Tombs of Discord? This contribution ends by looking again at the starting point for this research: the episcopal tomb in the chapel of San Nicolás of the Old Cathedral of Salamanca, whose titular is now more confidently identified as Bishop Pedro Pérez de Monroy, brother of Nuño Pérez de Monroy, Abbot of Santander and chancellor of Queen María de Molina, and brother of Fernán Pérez de Monroy, Lord of Monroy and cupbearer of Queen María de Molina. Bishop Pedro Pérez de Monroy was personally nominated by Pope Clement V, who rejected the local chapter’s unanimous proposal of its former Dean Diego Fernández, by then Bishop of Lamego in Portugal. Bishop Pedro Pérez de Monroy inaugurated at the see of Salamanca an era of bishops of noble and political profile, to which belong bishops like Juan Lucero or Diego de Anaya in this very same century. These are local examples of a process that became general throughout the entire Crown of Castile in the late Middle Ages.59 Certainly, Pedro Pérez de Monroy was not the first Bishop of Salamanca nominated personally by a pope: there are earlier examples, beginning with the aforementioned Alfonso de las Asturias. But former appointments always took place in the context of disputes within the chapter. What is new about Pedro Pérez de Monroy is that his nomination was made against the unanimous decision of the chapter: in fact, it marks the end of the control of the bishopric by the chapter, as traditional historiography already noted.60 Is some of this expressed in his tomb? Unfortunately, his stay in Avignon took place long before this city became a leading artistic centre, so that his tomb displays a local feel. As other tombs created in Salamanca since the late thirteenth century, his tomb combines sculpture and wall painting and shows, in terms of iconography, the representation of the funerals on the front of the sarcophagus, the recumbent effigy of the deceased on the top of the sarcophagus, and while 58

Los libros de actas capitulares de la Catedral de Salamanca, ed. by Vicente Baz, no. 116; Ávila Seoane, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces’, pp. 136–37. 59 Díaz Ibáñez, ‘La incorporación de la nobleza al alto clero en el reino de Castilla durante la Baja Edad Media’, pp. 559–65. 60 González Dávila, Historia de las antigüedades de la ciudad de Salamanca, pp. 248–49; Dorado, Compendio histórico de la ciudad de Salamanca, p. 243.

Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324)

217

omitting the Adoration of the Magi usual on the tympanum of the tombs of Salamanca, it shows on it an abridged Last Judgement (displayed in other monuments above the arched niche).61 What is more original is the choice of themes for the wall paintings of the soffit of the arched niche (see Figure 9.5): the figure of St Catherine to the right and a much-discussed scene to the left that in my (contested) opinion is a disputatio, where two figures holding books that look like seated clerics address each other with expressive gestures. The figure to the left is a woman (notice her long hair). This is why I interpret this scene as an abridged and unusual depiction of St Catherine disputing with the wise men, excluded from a narrative context and brought to a contemporary setting.62 In my opinion these images underline the role of Bishop Pedro Pérez de Monroy as protector of knowledge, because, as noted above, he contributed in a decisive way to the continuity of the University of Salamanca in the early fourteenth century. In the story reported here there is a second tomb to be considered: a niche tomb situated in the south transept of the Old Cathedral of Salamanca, close to the entrance to the cloister (see Figure 9.6).63 Its attribution has been the subject of great controversy. However, since the discovery of wall paintings in this area in 1997 it is clear that it belongs to a Diego who flourished in the early fourteenth century. A Diego because this name is recorded twice in the painted epitaph above the tomb.64 A Diego who flourished in the early fourteenth century because of its relationship with the adjacent tombs.65 Is this the tomb of Diego Fernández, the frustrated Bishop of Salamanca that became Bishop of Lamego and Zamora? I cannot be certain, but I think it is possible: Diego Fernández had no good reason at all to be buried either in Lamego or in Zamora. However, the recumbent effigy corresponds to an average cleric, not to a bishop. If this is his 61

Gutiérrez Baños, ‘Imaging the Tomb’, pp. 203–04. Ruiz Maldonado, ‘Imágenes de lo sagrado. Imágenes de lo humano’, n. 125, rejects this energetically. The depiction of this scene transformed into a devotional image per se, excluded from a narrative context, is attested in a Florentine panel by Cenni di Francesco dated possibly c. 1380, now preserved in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (no. 1982.35.1); see Christiansen, Saint Catherine Disputing and Two Donors. 63 About this tomb, see Gómez-Moreno, Catálogo monumental de España: Provincia de Salamanca, i, 118; Gutiérrez Baños, Aportación al estudio de la pintura de estilo gótico lineal en Castilla y León, ii, 176–78; Ruiz Maldonado, ‘Imágenes de lo sagrado. Imágenes de lo humano’, pp. 209–12. 64 Gutiérrez Baños, Aportación al estudio de la pintura de estilo gótico lineal en Castilla y León, ii, 178; Salamanca (siglos viii–xv), ed. by Rodríguez Suárez, no. 51. 65 It is placed physically and chronologically between the tombs of Alfonso Vidal, Dean of Ávila (d. 1288–89), and Diego, Archdeacon of Ledesma (d. 1304–06), created c. 1330. 62

Fernando Gutiérrez Baños

218

tomb, maybe he ordered it before 1306, when he became bishop (I don’t think so: he was eager for becoming bishop and he would have waited for it), or, if he ordered it later, he could decide to be represented as dean: first, to avoid a possible conflict with the Bishop of Salamanca; second, to be remembered in his city as the powerful cleric he had been.66 As his epitaph reads, ‘multis spargi Didaci fama’ (Diego’s fame reached many people).

66

There are other episcopal tombs whose titulars are not represented as bishops, but their circumstances are not fully comparable to this hypothetical case. In the cathedral of Girona, in Catalonia, Guillem de Montgrí (d. 1273), nominated Archbishop of Tarragona, was buried as chief sacristan, but certainly he had rejected the archbishopric. In the collegiate church of Tudela, in Navarre, Sancho Sánchez de Oteiza (d. 1425), Bishop of Pamplona, ordered a stillpreserved tomb as Dean of Tudela (the dignity he held before being appointed bishop), but this was before his nomination: he later ordered another tomb as Bishop of Pamplona in the cathedral church of his see, where he was finally buried.

Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324)

219

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Salamanca, Archivo de la Catedral de Salamanca [ACS], Caj. 67, leg. 3, núm. 1 Valladolid, Archivo del Monasterio de Santa María la Real de las Huelgas de Valladolid [AMSMRHV] Carp. 1, núm. 11 Carp. 1, núm. 14

Primary Sources Actas inéditas de siete concilios españoles celebrados desde el año 1282 hasta el de 1314, ed. by Fidel Fita y Colomé (Madrid: Imprenta de F. Maroto e Hijos, 1882) Catálogo de documentos del Archivo Catedralicio de Salamanca, ed. by Florencio Marcos Rodríguez (Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca and Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1962) Colección documental de Alfonso  XI: Diplomas reales conservados en el Archivo Histórico Nacional. Sección de Clero. Pergaminos, ed.  by Esther González Crespo (Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1985) Colección documental de la catedral de Salamanca, vol. i: 1098–1300, ed. by María Luisa Guadalupe Beraza, José Luis Martín Martín, Ángel Vaca Lorenzo, and Luis Miguel Villar García (Madrid: Caja España de Inversiones and Archivo Histórico Diocesano de León, 2009) Crónica del rey don Fernando, in Memorias de D. Fernando IV de Castilla, ed. by Antonio Benavides, vol. i (Madrid: Imprenta de José Rodríguez, 1860), pp. 1–243 Documentos del Clemente V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed. by Santiago Domínguez Sánchez, Monumenta Hispaniae Pontificia, 7 (León: Universidad de León, 2014) Gran crónica de Alfonso XI, ed. by Diego Catalán, 2 vols (Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1977) Historia compostelana, ed. by Emma Falque Rey (Madrid: Ediciones Akal, 1994) Los libros de actas capitulares de la Catedral de Salamanca (1298–1489), ed.  by Raúl Vicente Baz, Colección Instrumentos del Archivo Catedral de Salamanca, 2 (Salamanca: Cabildo Catedral de Salamanca, 2009) Regestum Clementis papae V[. Annus primus], ed. by monks of the Order of St Benedict (Roma: Typographia Vaticana, 1885) Salamanca (siglos viii–xv), ed.  by Natalia Rodríguez Suárez, Corpus Inscriptionum Hispaniae Medievalium, 2 (León: Universidad de León, 2016)

220

Fernando Gutiérrez Baños

Secondary Sources Aldea, Quintín, ‘Tercias reales’, in Diccionario de Historia Eclesiástica de España, ed. by Quintín Aldea Vaquero, Tomás Marín Martínez, and José Vives Gatell, 4 vols (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1972–75), iv, 2252–53 Álvarez Domínguez, Ursicino, Historia general civil y eclesiástica de la provincia de Zamora (Zamora: Establecimiento Tipográfico de ‘La Seña Bermeja’, 1889) Álvarez Villar, Julián, De heráldica salmantina: Historia de la ciudad en el arte de sus blasones, 2nd edn (Salamanca: Ayuntamiento de Salamanca and Colegio de España, 1997) Ávila Seoane, Nicolás, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces: tres señoríos tempranos en el concejo de Plasencia’, En la España Medieval, 27 (2004), 131–63 Barton, Simon, The Aristocracy in Twelfth­Century León and Castile (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) Beltrán de Heredia, Vicente, Cartulario de la Universidad de Salamanca (1218–1600), vol. i (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1970) Christiansen, Keith, Saint Catherine Disputing and Two Donors, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2014, [accessed 14 December 2017] Cooper, Edward, Castillos señoriales en la Corona de Castilla, rev. edn, 3 vols (Salamanca: Junta de Castilla y León, 1991) Costa, M. Gonçalves da, História do bispado e cidade de Lamego, vol. i: Idade Média: a mitra e o município (Lamego: Diocese de Lamego, 1977) Díaz Ibáñez, Jorge, ‘La incorporación de la nobleza al alto clero en el reino de Castilla durante la Baja Edad Media’, Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 35.2 (2005), 557–603 —— , ‘La provisión pontificia de beneficios eclesiásticos en el reino de Castilla durante el periodo aviñonés: Estado de la cuestión’, Lusitania Sacra, 22 (2010), 63–84 Dorado, Bernardo, Compendio histórico de la ciudad de Salamanca (Salamanca: Juan Antonio de Lasanta, [1776]) Gaibrois de Ballesteros, Mercedes, María de Molina (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1936) Gómez-Moreno, Manuel, Catálogo monumental de España: Provincia de Salamanca, 2 vols (Valencia: Dirección General de Bellas Artes, 1967) González Dávila, Gil, Historia de las antigüedades de la ciudad de Salamanca (Salamanca: Imprenta de Artús Taberniel, 1606) González Mínguez, César, Fernando IV de Castilla (1295–1312), 2nd edn (Gijón: Ediciones Trea, 2017) Goñi Gaztambide, José, Historia de la bula de cruzada en España (Vitoria: Editorial del Seminario, 1958) Guglieri Navarro, Araceli, Catálogo de sellos de la Sección de Sigilografía del Archivo Histórico Nacional, 3 vols (Valencia: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, 1974–75) Gutiérrez Baños, Fernando, Aportación al estudio de la pintura de estilo gótico lineal en Castilla y León: precisiones cronológicas y corpus de pintura mural y sobre tabla, 2 vols (Madrid: Fundación Universitaria Española, 2005)

Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324)

221

—— , ‘Imaging the Tomb: Remarks on Funerary Murals of the 13th and 14th Centuries in Castile and Leon’, in Out of the Stream: Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Mural Painting, ed. by Luís Urbano Afonso and Vítor Serrão (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007), pp. 182–205, 414–15 Ladero Quesada, Miguel Ángel, Fiscalidad y poder real en Castilla (1252–1369) (Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1993) Linehan, Peter, ‘The Church, the Economy and the Reconquista in Early FourteenthCentury Castile’, Revista Española de Teología, 43 (1983), 275–303 —— , The Spanish Church and the Papacy in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971) Marcos, Florencio, ‘Salamanca, Diócesis de’, in Diccionario de Historia Eclesiástica de España, ed. by Quintín Aldea Vaquero, Tomás Marín Martínez, and José Vives Gatell, 4  vols (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1972–75), iv, 2137–44 Nieto Soria, José Manuel, Las relaciones monarquía­episcopado castellano como sistema de poder (1252–1312), 2 vols (Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1983) Olivera Arranz, María del Rosario, ‘La hospitalidad privada en el Valladolid bajomedieval: el hospital de don Nuño Pérez de Monroy’, in Valladolid: Historia de una ciudad. Congreso Internacional, vol.  i: La ciudad y el arte: Valladolid villa (época medieval) (Valladolid: Ayuntamiento de Valladolid, 1999), pp. 327–37 Ruiz Maldonado, Margarita, ‘Imágenes de lo sagrado. Imágenes de lo humano: La escultura y pintura medievales’, in La catedral de Salamanca: Nueve siglos de historia y arte, ed. by René Jesús Payo Hernanz and Valentín Berriochoa Sánchez-Moreno (Burgos: Promecal, 2012), pp. 189–254 Sierra Simón, José María, ‘Estrategias matrimoniales de la casa de Monroy’, Revista de Estudios Extremeños, 72.1 (2016), 391–419 —— , ‘Mayorazgos de Monroy’, Revista de Estudios Extremeños, 71.1 (2015), 235–93 Velo y Nieto, Gervasio, Castillos de Extremadura (tierra de conquistadores): Cáceres (Madrid: Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Cáceres y Plasencia, 1968) —— , ‘Don Nuño Pérez de Monroy, abad de Santander’, Hispania Sacra, 3 (1950), 319–60

Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval Castile: The Bishop of Burgos, Luis de Acuña (1456–1495)* Susana Guijarro

L

uis de Acuña was Bishop of Burgos for over three decades (1456–95) He came to the city when he was about thirty-five years old from the diocese of Segovia, where he had been administrator of the Church. The city of Burgos was the political capital and main centre of international trade in the Kingdom of Castile in the late Middle Ages. Despite the fall in the number of inhabitants in the mid-fourteenth century, the following century began with a slow but steady growth that accelerated in its last decades. It has been calculated that in about 1500 the city would have had some twelve to fourteen

* This paper has been written in the framework of the research project HARD201679265-P (funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness) entitled ‘Culture, Power and Social Network in Medieval Castile: The Cathedral and Diocesan Clergy of Burgos in the Late Middle Ages’. Susana Guijarro ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor at the University of Cantabria, Spain. Her publications include ‘Maestros, escuelas y libros: El universo cultural de las Catedrales en la Castilla Medieval’ (University Carlos III, Madrid, 2004) and ‘El buen fazer, el buen morir en la sociedad medieval burgalesa, siglos xiii–xv’ (University of Cantabria, 2016), about attitudes towards death in the medieval city of Burgos. She has recently edited the book Cabildos catedralicios y obispos en la Iberia Medieval: autoridad, disciplina y conflicto (Editorial Sílex, 2019). Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 223–240 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120619 BREPOLS

224

Susana Guijarro

thousand inhabitants.1 Crafts and trade activity favoured the emergence of an urban oligarchy formed by members of the lower nobility (urban knights with both urban and rural income) and prosperous merchants. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries Burgos became the main centre in the kingdom for the redistribution of raw materials and manufactured products, which were exported to France, Flanders, and England through the ports in the north on the Bay of Biscay.2 The affirmation of some families and lineages in the city oligarchy caused violent disturbances between them and public disorder from the mid-fifteenth century. The pacification of the city allowed members of the high nobility, such as the Mendozas, members of the cathedral chapter, or the Estúñigas, who were delegated by the king to govern the castle, to intervene in the policies of the municipal government. The king’s law officers acted together with the municipal officers, so that royal justice became increasingly powerful. In addition, the city walls protected the royal court with relative frequency during its stays in Burgos; indeed, royal ceremonies of great fame for the Kingdom of Castile took place in its monasteries and churches. City life was also periodically altered in the second half of the fifteenth century as a consequence of the disputes over the succession to the throne between members of the royal family. Supporting one or another pretender to the throne was the cause of confrontations between lineages in the city oligarchy, and changing alliances were formed between the castle governors, the bishop, and the cathedral chapter.3 The diocese was directly dependent on the pontifical see in Rome, and it was one of the largest in Castile (30,000 km2, with about two thousand churches in the fifteenth century). Acuña’s bishopric took place at a time of political and economic instability marked above all by the war of succession to the throne during the reign of Enrique  IV (1454–74). Luis de Acuña’s life and career developed simultaneously in the spheres of the Church and politics. He is an archetype of the long process of the introduction of Castilian nobility into the high clergy, which began timidly in the thirteenth century and intensified in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.4 This process was favoured by a new dynasty (the Trastámara) reaching the throne of Castile in 1369, after the war between 1 However, there were outbreaks of epidemics in 1478 and 1496. See Martínez García, ‘La sociedad burgalesa a fines de la Edad Media’, p. 71. 2 Casado Alonso, ‘Oligarquía urbana, comercio internacional y poder real’, pp. 328–36. 3 Guerrero Navarrete, ‘Rey, nobleza y élites urbanas en Burgos (siglo xv)’, pp. 257–62. 4 Díaz Ibáñez, ‘La incorporación de la nobleza al alto clero en el reino de Castilla durante la Baja Edad Media’.

Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval Castile

225

Pedro I (1350–69) and his stepbrother Enrique (who became Enrique II of Castile), and the rise of new noble lineages.

The Ecclesiastical Career towards the Bishopric: Family, Patronage, and Clientelism Although King Enrique IV had backed Alfonso Vázquez de Acuña (Bishop of Jaen and of Mondoñedo) as the candidate to the bishopric of Burgos following the death of Bishop Alfonso de Cartagena, it was Luis de Acuña y Osorio who gained the position, which is proof of his contacts in the pontifical court. His family was linked to important noble lineages. His father, Juan Álvarez de Osorio, originated from Portugal and had been important in the court of King Enrique III of Castile (1390–1406). In turn, his mother, María de Manuel, had royal blood. He was the nephew of the Archbishop of Toledo, Alfonso Carrillo de Acuña (1446–82), and the Count of Buendía, Pedro de Acuña. On his mother’s side, he was related to Pedro Pacheco, Marquis of Villena and a favourite in King Enrique IV’s court.5 After his mother’s second marriage (to Garci Sarmiento), he had two stepbrothers, whom he helped when he became Bishop of Burgos: Pedro Girón, who became Archdeacon of Treviño (1466) and Archdeacon of Valpuesta (1474) in the diocese of Burgos,6 and Antonio Sarmiento who became one of the regidores (officials of the local government) in Burgos.7 We also know of four nephews who obtained canonries and dignities in Burgos cathedral chapter in the second half of the fifteenth century: Juan de Osorio8 (canon, Archdeacon of 5

López Martínez, ‘Don Luis de Acuña, el cabildo de Burgos y la reforma’, pp. 193–96. CAB, 16 September 1466, Libro Redondo of 1466, fol. 16r: Pedro Girón took possession of the archdeaconry of Treviño. CAB, 26 August 1474, Libro Redondo of 1474, fol. 13r: he obtained the archdeaconry of Valpuesta after an exchange that he made in Rome with Cardinal Rodrigo de Borja. 7 CAB, 12 and 13 September 1496, Libro 39/2, fol. 450v: in his last will, Bishop Acuña left him 400,000 maravedis (one of the Castilian coins) and called him his brother servant. It was, however, a problem for the bishop as in the conflict over the succession to the throne between King Enrique IV and his sister Isabel of Castile, Antonio Sarmiento helped those who supported Juana of Castile, Enrique IV’s daughter, as the heiress to the throne. Part of the Castilian nobility regarded Juana as an illegitimate daughter. 8 CAB, 24 October 1463, Libro Redondo of 1463, fol. 16r: Juan Osorio, Bishop Acuña’s nephew, took possession of a canonry. CAB, 13 December 1471, Register 18, fol. 402v: he took possession of the Abbey of San Quirce. CAB, 1454, Libro Redondo of 1454, fol. 13r: he took possession of the archdeaconry of Treviño. 6

226

Susana Guijarro

Treviño, and Abbot of San Quirce), Luis Osorio9 (precentor and canon at Burgos, Dean of León, and later Bishop of Jaen), Martín Vázquez de Acuña10 (canon), and Cristobal Osorio11 (canon). The kinship network was completed with two sons and a daughter (Teresa de Guzmán), who appear in his will, through his relationship with a noblewoman. However, it has not been possible to document clearly whether they were born before or after he became bishop. Through his son Diego de Osorio the kinship network was enlarged by the latter’s marriage to Isabel de Rojas (from an important lineage in Burgos), which then formed the lineage of the Osorio y Acuña.12 Diego de Osorio also ensured the presence of Bishop Acuña’s relatives in the municipal government, of which he became a regidor.13 In turn, his other son, Antonio de Acuña, guaranteed the participation of the bishop’s family in the cathedral chapter, where he obtained two canonries and two archdeaconries (Burgos and Valderas in the diocesis of Léon) and culminated his career by being raised to the episcopal see of Zamora. However, Bishop Acuña, his father, does not mention him at all in his detailed last will.14 Together with this kinship network, the bishop was surrounded by a large circle of employees, some of which were called ‘servants’ (criados). We know 9 CAB, 28 November 1466, Libro Redondo of 1466, fol. 18r: he was precentor or cantor for a short time. CAB, 31 July 1467, Register 18, fol. 45r: he appears as a canon in Burgos; he would later move to León Cathedral. CAB, 7 March 1471, Register 15, fol. 350r: he appears as a dean in León. 10 CAB, 13 September 1466, Register 17, fols 419v–422r: Bishop Acuña applied to the chapter for a canonry for his nephew Martín Vázquez de Acuña, of noble lineage but illegitimate birth. The chapter agrees to the request on condition that he received exemption for that circumstance. Meanwhile, Acuña’s secretary, Juan de Astudillo would occupy the canonry. There would be no further promotion in his nephew’s career, perhaps because of his illegitimacy. 11 CAB, 29  July 1477, Libro Redondo of 1477, fol.  12 r : he also appears as Abbot of Fuentecenadón on 20 July 1477. 12 CAB, 12 and 13 September 1495, Libro 39/2, fols 448r–451v: in his last will Bishop Luis de Acuña names his son Diego de Osorio universal heir of all his properties. CAB, Libro 39/2, fol. 443v. Diego de Osorio’s marriage with Isabel de Rojas enabled him to join the noble lineage of the Rojas and municipal politics in Burgos. 13 Diego de Osorio was always close to the Castilian court of the Catholic Monarchs, Isabel and Fernando (1474–1504). Municipal Archive of Burgos, Historical Section, Act Books of 1480, fol. 25r: in 1480 he became one of the city regidores (local officials) in Burgos. 14 CAB, 1 November 1486, Register 21, fols 255r–257r: his stay in the papal court in Rome enabled him to obtain a pontifical exemption for his condition as an illegitimate son in order to apply for ecclesiastical benefices. One year later he was awarded his first canonry in Burgos, CAB, 23 September 1487, Libro Redondo of 1487, fol. 8r. CAB, 15 October 1491, Register 26, fols 117r–1211r: he obtained a second canonry. CAB, 20 June 1507, Register 35, fol. 127v: he was Archdeacon of Valderas when he was named Bishop of Zamora.

Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval Castile

227

some of their names, like the servant Gonzalo de Ávila and, above all, those who reached positions in the cathedral chapter, like the canon Diego de Coria (1465) and the treasurer Juan de Monte (1490).15 However, the bishop’s most faithful man in the chapter was his butler Fernán Díaz de Fuentepelayo, whom he brought with him from Segovia and who obtained the dignities of precentor (1466) and Archdeacon of Burgos (1472).16 He was a long-lasting supporter of the bishop in the government of the diocese and in his private business. In his will, he also mentions several servants,17 and another document names five of his servants or squires (Pedro de Frias, Martín de Arce, Juan de Rojas, Martín Fría de Mozoncillo, and Alonso de Polanco).18 In addition, in 1477 he had a chapel built, dedicated to the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception (Chapel of the Conception, of which he was a devotee).19 This chapel, intended to be his burial place and that of his relatives, was another way to create a position for his servants by making them the chaplains of it ( Juan de Astudillo, Alonso de Oña, the precentor Diego de Andino, Pedro de Atienza, Alonso de León, and Francisco Artacho).20 15

CAB, 9 March 1465, Register 17, fol. 279r: Diego de Oria, Chamberlain of Obispo Acuña, obtained a canonry that year and later his treasurer, Juan Monte, took possession of another, CAB, 11 March 1490, Register 26, fols 11r–12v. 16 CAB, 2 November 1461, Libro Redondo of 1461, fol. 15v: five years after Acuña came to Burgos he obtained a canonry for Díaz de Fuentepelayo. CAB, 20 January 1462, Register 17, fol. 7r : Despite the initial opposition of the chapter members to Bishop Acuña having another two relatives/servants in Rome, they awarded Díaz de Fuentepelayo the condition of student and the corresponding assignation of eight thousand maravedis. CAB, 28 November 1466, Libro Redondo of 1466, fol. 18r : named precentor. Six years later, CAB, 7 February 1472, Libro Redondo of 1472, fol. 18v, he reached the dignity of Archdeacon of Burgos from where he was able to serve Bishop Acuña more efficaciously as one of his key men in the cathedral chapter. 17 CAB, 12 and 13 September 1495, Libro 39/2, fols 448r–451v. In his will he left amounts of money to some of his servants: four squires, three storekeepers (reposteros) whom he had at home, a cathedral caretaker, and a chapel boy. 18 Pampliega, Pontido y otras dependencias de la Catedral de Burgos, p. 38. 19 CAB, 11 June 1472, Vol. 20, fols 160v–166r : Bishop Acuña awarded funding to the foundation of postmortem memories connected with the place where he was buried. CAB, 25 January 1477, Register 20, fol. 91r: Luis de Acuña applied to the chapter for the place located behind the chapels of Santa Ana and San Antolín to build a chapel where his tomb would be placed. This chapel took the name of Chapel of the Conception because of his devotion to the Immaculate Conception. 20 CAB, 12 and 13 September 1495, Libro 39/2, fols 448r–451v: In his will he left amounts of money to some of his servants. See also the names of the chaplains in López Martínez, ‘Don Luis de Acuña, el cabildo de Burgos y la reforma’, p. 200.

Susana Guijarro

228

Diagram 10.1. Bishop Acuña’s kinship and patronage networks.

He must have had a large entourage because when he arrived in Burgos in 1457 to take possession of the bishopric, his relatives had to lodge in several houses belonging to the Burgos chapter. The bishop with his employees (some of which had their own servants), squires, and chaplains moved into the bishop’s palace on the southern side of the cathedral, but that was not enough. Bishop Acuña asked the chapter for permission to cross the enclosed bridge (pontido) to go from the palace to the high cloisters in the cathedral, above which there were several rooms.21 The chapter gave Bishop Acuña permission for some of his servants to lodge in those rooms for a year until the palace had been enlarged. The use of this enclosed wooden bridge was the cause of the first clash between the prelate and the cathedral chapter, as he and his retinue continued to use it. Indeed, an agreement between the chapter and the prelate in 1488 determined that after Bishop Acuña’s death, his successors would not have the right to cross from the bishop’s palace to the high cloister.22 21 22

CAB, 7 April 1457, Register 19, fol. 43r. CAB, 23 April 1488, Libro 46, fols 10r–12v: this agreement meant that until his death,

Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval Castile

229

Active Participation in Politics in the Kingdom of Castile Luis de Acuña’s relationship with the monarchy and most influential noble lineages was variable, as occurred with other fifteenth-century prelates. He played an active part in the political upheavals that endangered peace in the Kingdom of Castile during Enrique IV’s reign and the civil war that broke out after his death. In addition to the tense relations between part of the nobility and the monarch, in Burgos there were times of economic crisis that caused famines due to the increase in the rent that the peasants paid to use their lords’ land and the rise in the prices of basic products. The famines also combined with outbreaks of plague in the diocese and the consequent social discontent. There was also tension in the relations between the city and the governors (tenentes) of Burgos Castle, the powerful lineage of the Estúñiga, Counts of Plasencia and supporters of Juana, Enrique IV’s daughter, as the successor to the throne. The city sought the support of the bishop and the cathedral chapter against Count Álvaro de Estúñiga, who had aligned with the nobles who backed Prince Alfonso against his stepbrother King Enrique IV (1424–74). Bishop Acuña tried to remain impartial between the chapter, the city, and the Count of Plasencia (governor of the castle), but the kinship ties with the group of knights in the castle did not allow him to do so. Chapter and bishop supported the followers of Prince Alfonso.23 At first, Bishop Acuña had supported the monarch in the confrontation between Enrique IV’s followers and the city governors of Burgos in 1461.24 However, two years later, he took an active part in the meeting held in Burgos Cathedral with Enrique IV’s opponents, in which a list of grievances against the king was drafted. From that moment until 1468, he played an active role, and on occasions even put his armed men in the service of the supporters of Prince Alfonso.25 The sudden death of the prince in 1468 made his sister Isabel (stepsister of Enrique IV) the new candidate of the opposition. The agreement at ‘Toros de Guisando’ (Ávila) signed between Enrique IV and his stepsister made Isabel the Princess of Asturias and heir to the Bishop Acuña, his servants, and chaplains were allowed to use the wooden bridge (pontido) to go from the bishop’s palace to the high cloister in the cathedral and use the rooms prepared for his servants. 23 Martínez García, ‘El castillo de Burgos y el poder feudal (siglos xiv y xv)’. 24 Bonachía Hernando and Casado Alonso, ‘La segunda mitad del siglo xiv y el siglo xv’, pp. 384–85. 25 Ohara, ‘Reflexiones sobre la difusión de la información política en el ámbito urbano durante el reinado de Enrique IV’: From 1463 Luis de Acuña opposed King Enrique IV. He took part in the meeting that was held in the cathedral to draw up a list of citizens’ complaints against the king. This meeting helped the city of Burgos to align with the party opposing the king.

Susana Guijarro

230

throne over Juana, the king’s daughter, known as ‘la Beltraneja’ (she was born from the marriage between Enrique IV and Juana of Portugal that was declared illegitimate).26 In this new situation, Bishop Luis de Acuña approached his uncle, Alonso Carrillo de Acuña, Archbishop of Toledo, to gain the favour of Princess Isabel. That was the situation until the king’s death in 1472 although, in reality, he never fully separated from the side of the Marquis of Villena, to which his uncle, the archbishop, did not belong. King Enrique IV’s death marked the start of a new time of political instability in the Kingdom of Castile, beginning with the outbreak of civil war between supporters of Princess Isabel and the Portuguese followers of the king’s daughter, Juana ‘la Beltraneja’.27 Although Bishop Acuña swore loyalty to the new Queen Isabel in 1474, he again played an ambiguous role due to family and political obligations with the Portuguese supporters of Juana. He attempted to maintain a neutral position, but both the prelate and his stepbrother, Antonio Sarmiento, had to choose one of the two factions that divided the city of Burgos, and this was the side of Juana.28 The castle governor, Álvaro de Estúñiga did the same, but the cathedral chapter and the municipal government supported Isabel. In the middle of this political division, when the castle was besieged by Isabel’s supporters (1475–76), Bishop Acuña left the city and took refuge in his fortress in Rabé. After Isabel’s supporters took the castle in 1476, peace was signed with Portugal, but the bishop was banished to his fortress until he was allowed to return to the bishopric of Burgos in 1482.29 From there he governed the diocese and was able to move freely about it without entering the city itself. However, from 1477, he began to approach Queen Isabel, who confirmed his episcopal rights, but his ecclesiastical career did not end with an archbishopric.30

26

Enríquez de Castillo, Crónica del Rey Enrique IV de este nombre, ed. by Torres Fontes, ch. 102, pp. 334–37. 27 Villarroel González, Juana la Beltraneja, pp. 122–37. 28 Romero Portilla, ‘Protagonismo del partido portugués en la política castellana del siglo xv’. 29 Municipal Archive of Burgos, Historical Section 2996, 15 February 1482. 30 CAB, 16 March 1477, Vol. 21, fols 36–39.

Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval Castile

231

Ecclesiastical Policy: Reform and Resistance of the Cathedral Chapter to the Increase in Episcopal Power Unlike his predecessors, Bishop Acuña lived in the diocese of Burgos during most of his long bishopric. The lines of his ecclesiastical policy with the cathedral chapter and the diocese of Burgos show he was a prelate committed to the guidelines of reform taken by the Castilian Church in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It is not difficult to see in these guidelines the spirit of reform in the life and training of the clergy, as well as an increase in episcopal power and secular clergy. First of all, he took some measures regarding episcopal properties and possessions (mensa episcopalis). He was able to make some places in the diocese of Burgos that had left the mensa episcopalis return to it. He also recovered rent for the mensa episcopalis from some places that had stopped paying it.31 Additionally, he was continually struggling against the high taxes (decimae and subsidia) imposed on the cathedral chapter and diocese clergy by pontifical legates, following the Council of Mantua (1464), to finance the war against the Turks that had won control over the Byzantine Empire. For the cathedral chapter, he attempted to improve the financial situation of the lesser benefice holders, medio racioneros (half portionaries), the basis of service to the choir and the cathedral chapels, whose income barely allowed them to subsist. The difference with the income allotted to the greater benefice holders of dignitaries and canons was huge. This situation was particularly difficult in the time of economic crisis from 1456 to 1476, when the income of the cathedral chapter in money and kind decreased considerably. Most of the ecclesiastical benefices in the diocese did not come to more than 4000 maravedis a year, whereas some dignitaries received 25,668 maravedis a year (for example, the Archdeacon of Burgos in 1456).32 As well as taking away a prebend or ecclesiastical benefice to share the income among the half portionaries (twenty members), he founded funerary anniversaries in 1474 that would be helped by half portionaries. However, what most helped these lesser benefice holders was the foundation of a chapel (Chapel of the Conception) in the cathedral for his tomb and the burial of his relatives, dedicated to one of his favourite devotions, the Virgin 31

CAB, 28 December 1458, Register 16, fol. 77r: The cathedral chapter took before the pontifical court in Rome the case in which Bishop Luis de Acuña and the chapter litigated against the town council of Villasandino over the place of San Pedro del Campo, which had previously belonged to Burgos cathedral church. 32 CAB, 26 December 1460, Register 16, fol. 151r: Acuña informed the chapter about the low income that the half portionaries received and asked for their prebends to be increased individually. CAB, 1456, Libro Redondo of 1456, fol. 222r.

Susana Guijarro

232

of the Immaculate Conception. The institutional record of the foundation is dated in 1488 when the construction of the chapter was almost finished, but as a chaplancy it had existed in the cathedral since more than a decade before.33 In 1486 he put the twenty half-portionaries whom he considered the most needy to the service of this chapel. They would be assisted by two choirboys.34 In the end, only ten half-portionaries would serve in this chapel after the chapter protested that this service harmed their duties in the choir.35 Secondly, his most persistent policy, to put an end to the exemptions that restricted episcopal jurisdiction over the cathedral chapter, came up against the fierce resistance of that institution. Originally, the bishop was the supreme head of the chapters and was able to correct and punish them, but in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Holy See in Rome granted them exemption from episcopal jurisdiction and they were placed under the archbishop’s jurisdiction. In the case of the Church in Burgos, they also obtained exemption from the archbishop’s jurisdiction and came to depend directly on the Holy See (1096).36 The episcopal exemption and the custom supporting it was repeatedly used by the cathedral chapter as a reasoning against Bishop Acuña’s pretensions of participating in the correction and punishment of the behaviour of cathedral and diocese clergy. In fact, his first confrontation was with the archdeacons and abbots of the institution who acted with total independence in their circumscriptions. The prelate was unable to alter the custom with a new practice until nearly three decades later, when his protests about the life of some canons 33

CAB, 9 June 1488, Libro 39/2, fols 294–397. CAB, 12 April 1486, Vol. 21, fols 533r–535r. 35 CAB, 31 January 1486, Register 28, fol. 33r: Acuña established in the foundation of the Chapel of the Conception that it would be served by chaplains. These would be chosen from among the twenty half-portionaries that served the choir. This decision was not welcomed by the chapter members, who accused him of reducing the service to the choir. CAB, 12 and 13 September 1495, Libro 39/2, fol. 451r: In his will, Luis de Acuña, expressed his regret for taking twenty half-stipendaries from the choir and making them into chaplains in the chapel he founded. He stated that it was his will that these twenty half-portionaries should return to the choir and leave the benefices he had assigned them in his chapel. Thereafter, his chapel would be served only by ten half-portionaries, which would be presented and provided of their chaplaincy by the patron of the chapel named by Bishop Acuña. Only relatives and servants of the prelate were allowed to be buried in the chapel. 36 Garrido Garrido, Documentación de la Catedral de Burgos (804–1183), no. 61, 15 July 1096: Pope Urban II declared the diocese of Burgos exempt of archbishopric jurisdiction and subjected it directly to the Roman Apostolic See. He also acknowledged its ownership of the town of Henar and the monasteries of San Pedro de Berlangas and Santa María de Ravanera, which had been under the control of the Bishop of Toledo. 34

Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval Castile

233

reached the Catholic Monarchs.37 According to his reform, honesty should be reflected in the public life and image of the clergy. Supervision of the behaviour of the diocesan and cathedral clergy by the bishop and his officers prolonged the conflict between Acuña and the cathedral chapter. A previous study documented 282 cases of crimes and misdemeanours of cathedral and diocesan clergy that were persecuted, of which 68 per cent were punished, particularly in the second half of the fifteenth century.38 Bishop Acuña’s efforts to correct the behaviour of clergy and the faithful were bearing their fruits. The consequence was the agreement signed by both parties in 1488 and sanctioned by Innocent VIII in 1489.39 With this, the bishop was assured the correction of misdemeanours classified as serious. Some of these referred to Church possessions: perjury, simony, harm to Church properties, and inappropriate use of its symbols and sacred places. Others concerned social and individual life, especially stressing sexual relations: abortion, zoophilia, and relations between different ethnic groups and religions (Christians, Muslims, and Jews). The debate eventually restarted in 1490–91, and a new agreement was reached in 1492 and approved by Pope Alexander V.40 However, that did not put an end to discussions, which continued in the sixteenth century. 37

CAB, 6  March 1472, Register 18, fol.  423 r : The chapter ordered an investigation to be carried out of the maids of the chapter members who were accused of becoming their concubines. CAB, 26 November 1477, Register 20, fols 132r–133r: Bishop Acuña ordered an investigation into whether any chaplains were cohabiting. 38 Guijarro, ‘The Monastic Ideal of Discipline and the Making of Clerical Rules’. 39 CAB, 6 May 1488, Vol. 13/2, fol. 225r–233r: Bishop Acuña reached a first agreement in the jurisdiction conflict with the cathedral chapter over the right to visit the institution and punish the misdemeanours of its members. CAB, 1488–91, Libro 46, fol. 39r: This document compiling information about the later conflict alludes to the terms of this first agreement which allowed the bishop to judge certain cases, together with judges named by the chapter. These included violence against married women and nuns, sodomy, carnal relations with blood relatives, and similar. 40 CAB, 10 April 1492, Libro 46, fols 98r–101r and Vol. 55/2, fols 76r–81r: In the second agreement, Acuña and the chapter agreed to supervise and punish cases deemed to be serious. These included incest, public concubinage when it was not corrected after being condemned by the bishop or the chapter, abduction of women, and adultery. However, the chapter was allowed to pass judgement without the intervention of the bishop in such cases as aggression without weapons or blood, playing dice for less than thirty reales, and some cases of adultery and cohabitation. CAB, 29 September 1492, Vol. 55/2, fols 61r–65r: Alexander VI’s bull known as the ‘Alexandrian Concord’ (Ea, quae concordia), which confirmed the agreement (10 April 1492) between the Bishop of Burgos, Luis de Acuña, and the chapter, indicating the rights of each one as regards jurisdiction.

Susana Guijarro

234

As well as the tradition of episcopal exemption, another phenomenon may have made the cathedral chapter sensitive to the bishop’s participation in internal affairs, and that was the delicate matter of the provision of ecclesiastical benefices when they became vacant. Since the constitution granted by Innocent IV to the cathedral chapter (1252), a system had been in place alternating the proposal of candidates for vacant ecclesiastical benefices: once the bishop and the next time the chapter, although the proposals were sometimes made jointly.41 Additionally, the different steps on the ecclesiastical ladder should be respected, from the bottom (half portionary, portionary) to the top (canon and finally dignity). In practice, the step from the lower to higher hierarchy was not always respected. Indeed, in the first three decades of Acuña’s bishopric, several men linked to him rose rapidly in their careers. His brother, Pedro Girón, went in less than a decade from a half portionary and portionary in 1458 to occupy two important archdeaconries (Valpuesta and Treviño).42 In the last two decades of his bishopric, no less rapid and the cause of conflicts with the chapter, were the careers of Antonio de Acuña, his son (from lesser benefice holder to Abbot of the Collegiate Church of Salas),43 and his nephews Luis de Osorio, Martín Vázquez 41

CAB, 13 April 1252, Vol. 62/1, fol. 108r: Constitutions granted to the Church of Burgos by Cardinal Gil Torres and confirmed by Pope Innocent IV. 42 CAB, 9 April 1458, Register 15, fol. 19r: Pedro Girón obtained a half stipend. CAB, 11 April 1458, Register 15, fol. 19v–20r: he obtained a benefice of a stipend that had become vacant. CAB, 6 January 1459, Register 15, fol. 34r: Pedro Girón presented a letter from Bishop Acuña asking for permission to change his benefice of a stipend for a canonry. CAB, 12 August 1464, Libro 20, fol. 105r: he appeared as a canon and archdeacon at Valpuesta (diocese of Burgos). CAB, 13 September 1466, Register 17, fol. 419r: Bishop Acuña grants his brother, Pedro Girón, the archdeaconry of Treviño (diocese of Burgos). 43 Antonio Acuña, Bishop Acuña’s son, worked at the service of the pontifical court with Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII, which made it easier for him to obtain ecclesiastical benefices. CAB, 9 May 1484, Register 21, fols 186r–188r: Antonio Acuña presents Burgos cathedral chapter the letter in which Bishop Acuña assigns him a dignitary (abbot at the Abbey of Salas). CAB, 10 April 1486 and 15 November 1486, Register 21, fols 255r–257r and 273r–274r: He obtained pontifical exemption for his condition as an illegitimate son to be able to apply for ecclesiastical dignitaries and benefices in the dioceses of Burgos and Segovia. CAB, 11 November 1484, Register 22, fol. 187v: The cathedral chapter replied that it was a scandalous provision, never seen before, owing to his condition as Bishop Acuña’s son. CAB, 10 November 1484, Register 22, fol. 188r–118v: On Bishop Acuña’s insistence, the chapter allowed Antonio Acuña to take possession of the Abbey of Salas with the condition that he must not enter Burgos Cathedral, and after two years he changed that dignitary for a benefice in another church. CAB, 18 January 1485, Register 21, fols 188v–189r: He took possession of the Abbey of Salas through his cousin Juan Osorio who acted as his representative. CAB, 10 February 1485, Register 22, fol. 211r: The Catholic Monarchs warn the cathedral chapter that they have a candidate for the Abbey

Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval Castile

235

de Acuña, Cristobal de Osorio, and, above all, Juan de Osorio, who in fewer than ten years rose from canon to hold two dignities (Abbot of the Collegiate Church of San Quirce and Archdeacon of Treviño).44 Bishop Acuña gradually introduced into the chapter men of his kin and all those who served him. Some of these were called the bishop’s relatives or comensales because they had received that status as a prerogative of the bishop after applying for it. It was therefore an artificial kinship, characteristic of patronage and clientelism networks.

Promotion of Ecclesiastical Reform in the Diocese of Burgos Bishop Acuña’s support for late medieval ecclesiastical reform culminated in a diocese synod in 1474. The chapter complained that they had not been allowed to take part in drafting the rules of the synod.45 This revealed a double concern. First and foremost, the life and customs of the clergy were affecting their pastoral function. The rules imposed were related to their outer appearance (moderation in clerical vestments, clerical hairstyle, and no weapons) and inappropriate behaviour (concubinage, business with laymen, gambling at cards, insults, and violence).46 It also regulated the price that the faithful should pay for funerary services, as the costs were sometimes too high.47 Closely connected with improvements in the pastoral function, the bishop attempted to solve the ignorance of parish clergy in carrying out the care of souls. Thus, Acuña made all the clergy pass an examination on abilities in Latin grammar, the sacraments, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the faith in order to be ordained of Salas and Antonio Acuña should leave it. CAB, 22 September 1487, Libro Redondo of 1487, fol. 8r: After the death of the canon Gonzalo de Maluenda, he occupied his canonry. CAB, 15 October 1491, Register 26, fol. 117r and 11 December 1491, Register 26, fols 140r–141v: He obtained another canonry and, at the same time, the archdeaconry of Burgos. CAB, 20 June 1507, Register 35, fol. 127v: He culminated his career with the bishopric of Zamora although he kept the archdeaconry of Burgos. 44 López Martínez, ‘Don Luis de Acuña, el cabildo de Burgos y la reforma’, pp. 197–99. 45 Constitutions of Bishop Luis de Acuña, 3 July 1474, in Synodicon Hispanum, vii, ed. by García y García, Burgos 19, [264] X – [319] XXV. 46 Synodicon Hispanum, vii, ed. by García y García, Burgos 19 [268] II: adultery and fornication, [277] VII: concubinage among clergy, [316] XXIII: punishment of misdemeanours and crimes. CAB, 13 July 1467, Register 18, fol. 40r: forbade Ruy Gómez to play at dice, board games, cards, ball games, or any other game without the chapter’s permission, on the threat of a fine of five hundred maravedis and ten days in jail, as well as twenty lashes. 47 Synodicon Hispanum, vii, ed. by García y García, Burgos 19 [291] XII and [292] XII: the faithful only needed to pay the parish clergy funerary rights in kind in cases of penury.

Susana Guijarro

236

(1467).48 Because of the constant phenomenon of Muslims and Jews converting to Christianity, the clergy had to be alert to cases of false conversions, a misdemeanour for which Acuña determined punishments.49 The bishop’s other concern was to regulate the parish system and make Holy Mass uniform, by taking cathedral Mass as a model. In Burgos, a particular parish system had formed ‘patrimonial churches’ (iglesias patrimoniales), according to which the faithful were able to freely choose their parish, and the parishes were not divided into districts. Acuña believed that this caused confusion and problems when collecting tithes. In these ‘patrimonial churches’, the people in the district around the parish had obtained the right to choose their clergy from among residents in the district and their descendants. As a result, the priests were ordained exclusively for that parish. It was a protectionist system, but it also reduced the mobility of the priests and hindered their career towards higher ecclesiastical positions. Bishop Acuña did not put an end to the system, but he forbade the residents being half parishioners, belonging to two parishes at the same time.50 Further evidence of Acuña’s commitment to the reform of the Church in late medieval Castile was his contribution to changes in some monastic orders in Burgos (Mercedarians, Austin canons, Dominicans, and Poor Clares). Similarly, his inclination for Franciscan spirituality is seen in his support of the Monastery of San Esteban of Olmos, founded by the Acuña family.51 His patronage of architectural repairs and building work in Burgos Cathedral should also be mentioned.52

48

CAB, 7 July 1467, Register 18, fol. 47r. CAB, 2 October 1467, Register 18, fols 60r–61r: Those benefice holders who so wished were allowed to go to learn various studies for one year and for ten thousand maravedis. 49 Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería de Burgos’. López Martínez, Los judaizantes castellanos y la Inquisición, pp. 98–129. 50 Synodicon Hispanum, vii, ed. by García y García, Burgos 19 [292] XII: De sepulturis, [293] XIII, [294] XIII, and [295] XIII: De parochiis. 51 Omaechevarria, ‘Un plantel de seráfica santidad en las afueras de Burgos’. 52 Bishop Acuña, in addition to founding the Chapel of Saint Anne or the Conception (finished in 1488), paid for the construction of the spires on top of the towers of Burgos Cathedral, as well as the door connecting the cloister with the cathedral transept. San Martín Payo and Matesanz, La Edad de oro de la Caput castellae, pp. 439–46.

Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval Castile

237

A Churchman Influenced by Humanism and the Devotio Moderna The traits that made Luis de Acuña a model of late medieval bishop would not be complete without alluding to his cultural and spiritual interests, which can be intuited from the study of his library. Fortunately, it is one of the few libraries of a Castilian bishop for which we have an inventory, which records 363 books. It reflects the common characteristics of ecclesiastical libraries since earlier centuries in the Middle Ages as regards the available subject matter. It is predominated by law books (167 volumes) followed by theology (86 books). The most noteworthy aspect of the law authors is the large number of canonists and civilists (21 have been identified), mostly Italians as might be expected, but also canonists linked to the University of Salamanca. As usual in the libraries of ecclesiastics, among the theology books there are commentaries on the books in the Bible, many of which do not name the author. As well as the Fathers of the Latin Church, there are a few authors of twelfth-century scholastic theology (Peter Lombard, Peter Comestor, and Rupert of Deutz), and the great summists of thirteenth-century systematic theology (Saint Bonaventure, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, and Vincent of Beauvais). The representation of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century theologians is almost complete for those that taught in the University of Salamanca and formed part of the circle of the introducers of humanism in Castile, together with the Bishops of Burgos, Pablo de Santa María and Alfonso de Cartagena. Although there are fewer books by European theologians, there is a commentary on the works of Nicholas of Lyra († 1349) and Ludolph of Saxony († 1377), who were representatives of mystic theology and the religious sensibility of the devotio moderna. Books in Acuña’s library belonging to the Liberal Arts approach the programme of the Studia humanitatis adopted by the late medieval grammar schools through the influence of humanism. The historical and philological approach of the grammarians is deduced from the grammar books of Guarino da Verona († 1480) and Antonio Nebrija († 1522). The emphasis on oratory is seen in the rhetorical books of Aristotle, Cicero, and Petrarch († 1374). The moral aspect to accompany training in language and form the man in civic virtues is found in poetry, in Politics and Ethics by Aristotle translated into vernacular languages, in the moral treatises of Seneca and Cicero, in histories of classical antiquity, and the chronicles of kingdoms (General Chronicle of Spain) or Italian city-states (History of Florence) and other genres, such as the ‘Sums of Vices and Virtues’ or the ‘Regiments of Princes’ (Egidio Romano).53 These bibliographical 53

A full study of the medieval inventories of Burgos Cathedral Library may be found in Guijarro, ‘La circulación de libros entre el clero y la biblioteca de la catedral de Burgos en la Edad Media’.

238

Susana Guijarro

interests of Acuña indicate not only a churchman trained in canonical law but also the man of government and authority to whom the programme in Studia humanitatis was addressed.

Conclusion Luis de Acuña’s ecclesiastical career followed a pattern common to the model of Spanish bishops in the late Middle Ages. His family origins were connected to lineages of the high nobility close to the monarchy that had risen when the Trastámara dynasty had reached the throne. At a time of political crisis and economic instability in the Kingdom of Castile, he took an active part in politics in the kingdom while attempting to keep a balance between supporting the king and the factions of nobles that followed him and the opposing side. Finally, the side he chose was determined by kinship ties and clientelism rather than by his own interests. That may be the reason why he did not become Archbishop of Toledo or a cardinal, as he had possibly aspired to because of family tradition. His government of the Church in Burgos followed the main guidelines of the late medieval reform of the Castilian Church: to regenerate the life and training of secular and regular clergy, defend the rents and possessions of each cathedral and diocese, and strengthen episcopal power. Bishop Acuña did not put an end to the jurisdictional independence of the Burgos cathedral chapter, but he challenged it and placed men of his family and clientelism network in the chapter and government of the diocese. To achieve this, he had to obtain an active role in the naming and provision of offices and ecclesiastical benefices. His main achievement in the field of episcopal jurisdiction was to make the cathedral chapter alert to the systematic correction of the behaviour of clergy and laymen. This was of great transcendence in shaping social values, above all because the most serious cases and those most threatening for the public image of the Church were reserved for his authority. In sum, Luis de Acuña is a paradigm of the complex interactions between the monarchy, the powerful elite (nobles and city oligarchs), and the Church, represented by the bishops and cathedral chapters, in late medieval Spain.

Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval Castile

239

Works Cited Manuscripts and Archival Sources Cathedral Archive of Burgos [CAB] Libros 39/2 and 46 Libros Redondos of the years 1454, 1456, 1461, 1463, 1466, 1472, 1474, 1477 and 1487 Registers 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 21, 22, 23, 27 and 35 Volúmenes (Vol.) 20, 21, 28, 13/2, 55/2 and 62/1 Municipal Archive of Burgos, Historical Section, Acts of Books of the year 1480

Primary Sources Enríquez de Castillo, Diego, Crónica del Rey Enrique IV de este nombre, ed. by Juan Torres Fontes (Murcia: Instituto Jerónimo Zurita, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1946) Garrido Garrido, José Manuel, Documentación de la Catedral de Burgos (804–1183), Colección Fuentes medievales castellano-leonesas, 13 (Burgos: Ediciones Garrido, 1983) Synodicon Hispanum: Burgos y Palencia, ed. by Antonio García y García, vol. vii (Madrid: Biblioteca de autores cristianos, 1997)

Secondary Sources Bonachía Hernando, Juan Antonio, and Hilario Casado Alonso, ‘La segunda mitad del siglo xiv y el siglo xv’, in Burgos en la Edad Media (Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, 1984), pp. 213–498 Cantera Burgos, Francisco, ‘La judería de Burgos’, Sefarad: Revista de Estudios Hebraicos y Sefardíes, 12 (1952), 59–104 Casado Alonso, Hilario, ‘Oligarquía urbana, comercio internacional y poder real: Burgos a fines de la Edad Media’, in Realidad e imágenes del poder: España a fines de la edad media, ed. by Adeline Rucquoi (Valladolid: Ámbito, 1988), pp. 325–48 Díaz Ibáñez, Jorge, ‘La incorporación de la nobleza al alto clero en el reino de Castilla durante la Baja Edad Media’, Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 35.2 (2005), 557–603 Guerrero Navarrete, Yolanda, ‘Rey, nobleza y élites urbanas en Burgos (siglo xv)’, in El contrato político en la Corona de Castilla: Cultura y sociedad política entre los siglos x al xvi, ed. by François Foronda and Ana Isabel Carrasco Manchado (Madrid: Dikinson, 2008), pp. 241–79 Guijarro, Susana, ‘La circulación de libros entre el clero y la biblioteca de la catedral de Burgos en la Edad Media’, Studium Ovetense, 27 (1998), 7–28

240

Susana Guijarro

—— ,  ‘The Monastic Idea. of Discipline and the Making of Clerical Rules’, Journal of Medieval Monastic Studies, 2 (2013), 131–47 López Martínez, Nicolás, ‘Don Luis de Acuña, el cabildo de Burgos y la reforma (1456–1495)’, Burgense, 2 (1961), 185–317 —— , Los judaizantes castellanos y la Inquisición en tiempo de los Reyes Católicos (Burgos: Seminario Metropolitano de Burgos, 1954) Martínez García, Luis, ‘El castillo de Burgos y el poder feudal (siglos xiv y xv)’, in El Castillo de Burgos, ed.  by Marta Sainz (Burgos: Ayuntamiento de Burgos, 1997), pp. 151–72 —— , ‘La sociedad burgalesa a fines de la Edad Media’, in Actas de V centenario del Consulado de Burgos, vol. ii (Burgos: Diputación Provincial de Burgos, 1994), pp. 57–104 Ohara, Sima, ‘Reflexiones sobre la difusión de la información política en el ámbito urbano durante el reinado de Enrique IV’, Historia, Instituciones y Documentos, 32 (2005), 247–62 Omaechevarria, Isidoro, ‘Un plantel de seráfica santidad en las afueras de Burgos’, Boletín de la Institución Fernán González, 10 (1952), 148–61 Pampliega, Rafael, Pontido y otras dependencias de la Catedral de Burgos (Burgos: Monte Carmelo, 2005) Romero Portilla, Paz, ‘Protagonismo del partido portugués en la política castellana del siglo xv’, Revista da Facultade de Letras, 4 (2003), 187–212 San Martín Payo, René, and José Matesanz, La Edad de oro de la Caput castellae: Arte y sociedad en Burgos, 1450–1600 (Burgos: Editorial Dosoles, 2015) Villarroel González, Óscar, Juana la Beltraneja: La construcción de una ilegitimidad (Madrid: Sílex, 2014)

Part IV Bishops and the Papacy

Episcopal Appointments in Northern Italy during the Papacy of John XXII Fabrizio Pagnoni

S

cholars working on the growth of papal power in the Late Middle Ages have traditionally focused on the attempts by the Apostolic See to increase its influence over episcopal appointments across Christendom. The right of intervention by the pontiff, as defined by canon law since the second half of the thirteenth century, increased during the fourteenth century, especially at the time of the Avignon popes.1 The aim of this study is to discuss these matters along certain lines that allow us to measure the pervasiveness of the interventionism of the popes vis-à-vis the complex network of social, political, and religious relations that surrounded the delicate moment of the choice of the prelate. Ultimately, this piece will try to evaluate to what extent the papal reservations changed clerics’ routes to the episcopate and the profiles of nominated bishops. Following this line of argument, the papacy of John  XXII (1316–34) requires specific attention, for this pontiff had an important role in the profound reorganization of the structures of the papal Curia. Considered as a key topic of his entire pontificate, his political actions in Italy have earned greater attention

1

Barraclough, Papal Provisions and Gaudemet, ‘De l’élection à la nomination des évêques’. For the Italian situation, see Rando, ‘Le elezioni vescovili nei secoli xii–xiv’, pp. 376–77, and Rigon, ‘Le elezioni vescovili’, pp. 404–09. Fabrizio Pagnoni ([email protected]) is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Milan. His publications include L’episcopato di Brescia nel basso medioevo (Viella, 2018); his current research interest is the episcopal government in late medieval Italy. Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 243–261 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120620 BREPOLS

Fabrizio Pagnoni

244

from scholars.2 In order to pursue the ambitious coordination programme of the peninsula under the auspices of the Guelph players and the papacy and to subjugate the rampant Ghibelline dominions of northern Italy, the pontiff not only committed considerable economic resources, but also used original instruments, such as the extension of the apostolic reservation on episcopal appointments in the regions most affected by the political conflict.3 In the following pages, this text argues that in order to understand how these aspects of Pope John  XXII’s politics in northern Italy influenced the mechanism of selection of the bishops and the repercussions this had on the episcopal recruitment channels, we need to examine specific appointments and their political alliances within this area. The analysis here proposed consists of about fifty dioceses, at that time included in the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan, Aquileia, Genoa, and Ravenna.

A Premise: Limits to Papal Intervention Before analysing the Italian episcopate of the pontificate of John  XXII, it is important, however, to draw attention to some aspects which relate to some forms of papal control over episcopal appointments. After the first canonical codification, which can be traced back essentially to the Licet Ecclesiarum of Clement IV (1265), papal provisions acquired a growing power to the detriment of the right of election still held by the cathedral chapters. The interventions of the Apostolic See in episcopal appointments became steadily more frequent to the point of losing, during the reigns of Boniface  VIII (1294–1303) and Clement V (1305–14), the extraordinary nature that they had had only half a century earlier.4 In relation to the geographical context here specified, it was precisely Pope Boniface VIII who made extensive use of the right of reservation through a series of provisions, amongst which the best known is certainly the Reservatio ecclesiae Mediolanensis (1295), by means of which he advocated the right of appointment to the Ambrosian archbishopric to the Apostolic See.5 All 2

Starting from the notable works of Tabacco, La casa di Francia; Tabacco, ‘Programmi di politica italiana’; Manselli, ‘Un papa in un età di contraddizione’. 3 Jamme, ‘Des usages de la démocratie’, p. 280. 4 Guillemain, La Cour pontificale d’Avignon, pp. 104–10; Gaudemet, ‘De l’élection à la nomination des évêques’. 5 On the apostolic reservation of the Milanese Church, see Andenna, ‘The Lombard Church in the Late Middle Ages’, p. 71. Other cases of papal intervention in episcopal elections occurred at least in Tortona (1295), Novara (1296), Aquileia (1302: see respectively Les

episcopal appointments in northern italy

245

these interventions had a precise feature, that is, they concerned single diocesan contexts, but they had no influence on a wider scale. It was precisely on this second aspect, as we will be seeing, that John XXII’s action was more significant. Another important aspect that should be taken into consideration is how extremely rare it was, at that time, that they made use of episcopal transfers. According to the widely accepted conception of the existing ‘mystical marriage’ between the pastor and his church, this practice had been opposed in canonistic tradition since the late twelfth century.6 Even at the beginning of the fourteenth century, the movement of bishops from one diocese to another was rather unusual, unless it took place following the promotion to a greater ecclesiastical dignity. This aspect represented a tangible limit to papal intervention in the episcopal appointments, as is demonstrated by some dioceses in northern Italy, mainly Bergamo, Mantua, Trento, Acqui, Alessandria, and Faenza. The respective bishops of these dioceses did not die during the papacy of John XXII, so this may explain the fact that there is no actual record of his intervention in these places.

Bird’s­Eye View: The Extension of the Pontifical Reservation in Northern Italy Comparing the data can elucidate the frequency of John  XXII’s use of the instrument of pontifical reservation. Whilst at the moment of his election in 1316, in the forty-eight dioceses examined, seventeen were bishops elected by the respective cathedral chapters, in all the other locations, there were prelates appointed by John’s predecessors (often, as we have seen, by issuing specific reservations). Most of the time, papal interventions in these kind of appointments had been provoked by serious conflicts within the cathedral chapters, often caused by double elections and from profound divisions within the local clergy.7 During the papacy of John XXII the number of bishops selected through the traditional mechanisms of the capitular election diminished drastically: between 1316 and 1334 only four prelates out of a total of fifty-four episcopal Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. by Digard and others, nos 461, 914, 4611), Ravenna (1303: Piazzoni, ‘Concoregio, Rinaldo da’), Ferrara, Acqui (both 1304: see respectively Les Registres de Benoît XI, ed. by Grandjean, nos 646, 1226). 6 Mollat, La Collation des bénéfices ecclésiastiques, p.  70; Ronzani, ‘Un aspetto della circolazione degli ecclesiastici’. 7 In that period, the bishops elected by the chapter were those of Lodi, Como, Vercelli, Genova, Luni, Brugnato, Savona, Tortona, Ventimiglia, Bobbio, Forlì, Modena, Reggio, Verona, and Ceneda. See Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, ed. by Eubel.

246

Fabrizio Pagnoni

appointments were chosen directly by the chapter without the apparent intervention of the pope.8 In all the other cases, the bishops were chosen directly by the Apostolic See, and eventually confirmed by the respective cathedral chapters. To strengthen his control over the benefices, both major and minor, the pontiff made use of specific legal instruments, such as the bulls Ex debito (1316) and Execrabilis (1317), which extended the categories of benefices for which the pontifical collation was intended.9 Equally important, especially regarding the field studied here, were the general reservations declared in 1322, for through them the pontiff managed to keep the collation of the major benefices in the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan, Ravenna, Genoa, and Aquileia for the Apostolic See.10 Whilst taking into account the limitations of papal action previously outlined, it is possible to appreciate that these decisions undoubtedly had the effect of reinforcing Avignon’s control over the episcopate in these areas: they could therefore be related to the contemporary clash between the Guelph alliance and the Ghibelline lordships in Lombardy.11 In this regard, it is worth considering whether it is possible to extend to the analysis of the episcopal appointments Sebastian Zanke’s recent hypothesis on the papal chancellery, namely that ‘Italy was the only region for which the popes […] developed a certain form of premeditated interest as opposed to interest generated as a result of being prompted by a petition’.12

The First Episcopal Appointments in Northern Italy (1316–1320) From the first few months after his election, the Italian question acquired an important place on John XXII’s political agenda, given that the pontiff sought to make the Apostolic See the backbone of a politically oriented peace-making campaign. Likewise, he attempted to build a strong relationship with the House of Anjou and the Italian Guelph players. Northern Italy represented, in this respect, an ideal stage on which to experiment with this peace policy, even if 8 It is therefore important to point out that all these nominations occurred before the general reservations issued in 1322: Concordia (1317), Forlì (1318), Turin (1320), and Genoa (1321). See Gianni, ‘La diocesi di Concordia in Friuli’, p. 166; Ughelli, Italia sacra, iv, cols 1476–77; Boldorini, ‘Bartolomeo da Reggio’. 9 Mollat, La Collation des bénéfices ecclésiastiques, pp. 12–25. 10 Lettres communes de Jean XXII, ed. by Mollat, no. 16165. 11 De Sandre Gasparini, ‘Chiese venete e signorie cittadine’, p. 316. 12 Zanke, ‘Imagined Spaces?’, pp. 471–72: ‘The main focus of papal policy certain lay on Italian matters’.

episcopal appointments in northern italy

247

there were uncertainties about the ways in which the balance could have been attained, as the advance of the Ghibelline lordships seriously threatened not only the Angevin dominions, but also the cities belonging to the Guelph alliance.13 In such a context, it is therefore important to pay attention both to the various channels through which the pontiff selected the new bishops and to the profile of the latter, for these elements may reveal further aspects of papal politics in Italy. The conflict between the Guelph alliance and the Ghibelline forces exploded at the end of 1317 when, after the failure of Bernard Guy and Bertrand de la Tour’s mission, sentences of excommunication were pronounced and then issued on the Visconti family.14 Until that time, the pope had nominated six new bishops, who were recruited from amongst the main Lombard Guelph families, as for instance, Tiberio della Torre, or those who belonged to families with important ties to the papal Curia, such as Princivalle Fieschi or Federico Cybo.15 The Archbishop of Milan Cassone della Torre, who had been banned from the city on account of the conflict with the Visconti family, was transferred to the see of Aquileia, where the Della Torre kinship had moved between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries as a result of the Visconti’s accession to power.16 In Milan in 1317, the pope appointed the friar Aicardo di Camodeia, who was a trusted person of John XXII and had served for several years as Franciscan provincial in Lombardy and could therefore guarantee a good knowledge of the Italian political context. Through his network of contacts, Aicardo was able to coordinate part of the Lombard clergy against the Visconti, who prevented him from entering Milan for a considerable time.17 In the wake of the Italian legation of Bernard Guy and Bertrand de la Tour, and their preaching against the political and factional divisions, interesting areas for intervention in episcopal appointments opened up for the papacy. In Modena, where the chapter had split because of the divisions amongst the canons, 13

Tabacco, La casa di Francia, pp. 153–55. Tabacco, La casa di Francia, pp. 169–73. Parent, ‘Entre rébellion, hérésie, politique et idéologie’. 15 Pagnoni, L’episcopato di Brescia nel basso medioevo, pp. 240–44. Lettres communes de Jean XXII, ed. by Mollat, nos 6770, 9297. 16 Fantoni, ‘Della Torre Cassone’, pp. 524–25. The instability of Cassone’s episcopate was also due to internal conflicts within the Torriani family: Grillo, Milano guelfa, pp. 187–94. 17 Cadili, ‘Governare dall’“esilio”’, pp. 291–94. Some of the churchmen who supported Aicardo were appointed bishops later: Tiberio della Torre at Tortona (Covini, ‘Della Torre Tiberio’), Princivalle Fieschi at Brescia (Pagnoni, L’episcopato di Brescia nel basso medioevo, p. 238), Pace da Vedano, and Giordano da Montecucco (see below). 14

Fabrizio Pagnoni

248

the Ghibelline part had identified Matteo da Gorzano as the ideal candidate to succeed the deceased Bishop Bonincontro da Fiorano; nevertheless, the preaching of the papal legates had the effect of making the candidate preferred by the other half of the canons, Guido de Guisis, prevail.18 Similar situations occurred in Lodi, where the Franciscan Leone Palatini was nominated to resolve the conflict which had originated with the double election of Roberto Visconti and Alcherio dell’Acqua. To some extent this situation was replicated in Cremona, where John’s XXII’s intervention in 1318 in favour of Egidio Madalberti managed to settle a dispute in the chapter which had begun five years earlier, and to defeat the choice of Egidiolo Bonseri, supported by the Ponzoni family, who had approached and supported the Visconti faction.19 The episcopal sees that became vacant over those years were assigned to persons closely connected to the political orientations of the Apostolic See and who often, through their service in the offices of the papal government, had built a close relationship with the circles of the Curia of Avignon. This included Ildebrandino Conti, nominated in Padua in 1319, an important diplomat on behalf of the papacy, the apostolic penitentiary Raimondo (nominated in Ventimiglia in 1320), Bernabò Malaspina (nominated in Luni in 1320), and Egidio Madalberti. All of them were real accumulators of prebends by virtue of their close ties with some important cardinals’ familiae.20 Only a few of these prelates were chosen from amongst the main aristocratic families of their respective dioceses: in all these cases, in fact, the pontiff acted pragmatically, choosing people who were able to move the political axis in a direction convenient for the Guelph alliance regardless of their geographical origin. In some cases, the episcopal nomination could contribute towards strengthening ties with the cities in question, as it happened in the case of Brescia. After the expulsion of the Ghibelline Bishop Federico Maggi by the Guelphs in 1316, the pope intervened by excommunicating the prelate, nominating as apostolic administrator the Guelph Inverardo Confalonieri, Abbot of St Euphemia, and finally, by appointing Princivalle Fieschi, a man tied to the Curia of Avignon, to the see of Brescia.21 The choice of a trusted figure could also be useful to destabilize political contexts which were not securely under the control of the Guelphs, as we have 18

Gianni, ‘Prima di Concordia’, pp. 17–18. See respectively Ughelli, Italia sacra, iv, col. 679; Andenna, ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche dall’età longobarda’, pp. 128–31. 20 Sambin, ‘Un amico del Petrarca’; Polonio, ‘Frati in cattedra’; Ragone, ‘Malaspina Bernabò’; Andenna, ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche dall’età longobarda’, pp. 131–32. 21 Pagnoni, L’episcopato di Brescia nel basso medioevo, pp. 237–38. 19

episcopal appointments in northern italy

249

seen in the examples of Milan and Cremona. This situation was replicated elsewhere, as for instance in Luni, where in 1320 Bernabò Malaspina, a nephew of the Cardinal Luca Fieschi, was chosen against the will of the Ghibelline lord Castruccio Castracani, who aimed to establish a more malleable individual in the see of Luni.22 In Pavia papal action was more subtle. In 1320, after the excommunication of Isnardo Tacconi (who had close ties with the Visconti family and for some time had acted as a real Ghibelline informant at the Avignon court) the pope appointed Giovanni Beccaria, despite his provenance from one of the main Ghibelline families of the city. This action was not only an acknowledgement of the power achieved by the Beccaria family in Pavia, but also an attempt to endorse their regime: in those years they had just inaugurated a system of government in the city based on the inclusion of some of the major Guelph families. The intention of the pope was therefore to encourage a rapprochement with the Apostolic See, contributing to the containment of the Milanese expansion in Lombardy.23

The Legation of Bertrand du Poujet and the Acute Stages of the Clash (1320–1330) After the failure of Bernard Guy and Bertrand de la Tour’s mission, John XXII entrusted the legation in Italy to one of his closest collaborators, Bertrand du Poujet. Appointed in 1319, he left for Piedmont in July 1320. For the campaign against the Italian Ghibellines, he relied on papal finances and the military support of a broad coalition.24 During his long mission, Bertrand played a crucial role not only in the negotiations between Avignon and the main Italian political players, but also in the selection of those who would have to occupy the episcopal sees that became vacant from time to time. This situation was repeated in at least four important dioceses in the general political arena. Bertrand rewarded the loyalty of those families who supported the Guelph alliance by granting them episcopal office. In Piacenza, where in 1322 Obizzo Landi had made a decisive contribution to the end of the Visconti lordship, thus allowing Bertrand to enter the city, the negotiations for the nomination of the bishop (the seat in Piacenza had been vacant since 1317) led to the choice of Bernardo Cario, who was 22

Ragone, ‘Malaspina Bernabò’. Majocchi, ‘Cronotassi dei vescovi di Pavia nei secoli xiv e xv’, pp. 50–51; Rao, Signori di popolo, p. 107. 24 Jugie and Jamme, ‘Poggetto, Bertrando del (Bertrand du Pouget)’. 23

Fabrizio Pagnoni

250

related to Obizzo.25 Similarly, in Parma the consecration of the alliance between the Church and the Rossi family, the new lords of the city, took place through the promotion of Bishop Simone Saltarelli to the archdiocese of Pisa and the nomination of Ugolino, brother of Rolando Rossi and a member of Bertrand du Poujet’s family.26 The action of the papal legate was equally evident in the episcopate of Ivrea, whose patrimony and jurisdictions were the main objective of the Marquises of Monferrato and the Counts of Savoy. After the death of Bishop Alberto Gonzaga in 1321, Bertrand oriented the choice towards Uberto di Santo Stefano who, with the assistance of papal diplomacy, intervened as peacemaker in the disputes that divided the episcopal vassals.27 At the moment of his death in 1326, the mediation of Bertrand du Poujet favoured the appointment of Palaino, who belonged to the Avogadro kinship from Vercelli and was a canon of that city.28 Like Ugolino Rossi and Bernardo Cario, Palaino was also careful regarding the reorganization of the episcopal patrimony, and thanks to the particular bond to the Curia in Avignon, he obtained certain freedoms of action on the vacant benefices in his own diocese.29 Moreover, this second aspect allowed them to practise extensive patronage and strengthen their local political bonds. Similarly in Reggio in 1329, Bertrand du Poujet’s choice of Guido Roberti as successor of Guido da Baiso followed his intention to reward a family that had not betrayed the Church, even after the sedition of some important Guelph kinships, like the Manfredi and the Fogliani.30 To sum up, in the harshest years of the war between the Church and the Italian Ghibelline forces, it is possible to identify some correlation between the Guelph project carried out by the papacy and some features of the episcopate in northern Italy. In that decade, all the vacant sees of some strategic importance were given to prelates involved in the papal political project. There were different channels of selection and promotion: as it has been seen above, in Emilia (and in those cities where Bertrand du Poujet managed to establish direct control) the prelates 25

Ponzini, ‘La vita religiosa a Piacenza nel basso medioevo’, p. 368. On Obizzo’s political role within the city and his support to the military campaign of the Legate, see Angiolini, ‘Landi Obizzo’, p. 404; ASV, Camera Apostolica, Introitus et exitus, 49, fol. 27v. 26 Pagnoni, ‘Rossi Ugolino’. 27 Andenna, ‘Episcopato e strutture diocesane nel Trecento’, pp. 333–34. 28 Ferraris, ‘I canonici della Cattedrale di Vercelli nel secolo xiv’, p. 291. 29 Andenna, ‘Episcopato e strutture diocesane nel Trecento’, pp. 348–61. 30 These families left the Guelph alliance and gave their support to Louis the Bavarian: Gamberini, ‘Chiesa vescovile e società politica a Reggio nel Trecento’, p. 189.

episcopal appointments in northern italy

251

were mainly chosen amongst the most powerful families of the local aristocracy in order to bolster the political connection between them and the Church. In the Milanese ecclesiastical province, however, this aspect was more nuanced. In fact, there, independent of the geographical origins of the candidates, it was their commitment to the Apostolic See that played an important role in the process of selection of the bishops. A key example of this is the case of Benedetto de Asnago, magister Theologiae at the University of Paris, commissioned by John XXII to several important missions (including visiting Dominican convents in the Roman and Lombard provinces in order to investigate the presence of friars suspected of Ghibelline sympathies), who was chosen as Bishop of Como in 1328. The Ghibelline lord of that city, Franchino Rusca, had forced the chapter to elect his brother Valeriano, but the nomination was rejected by the pope who sent (not without difficulty) his faithful collaborator to Como.31 Although they did not reach the high cultural and political profile of Benedetto de Asnago, Carante Sannazari (appointed in 1323 in Pavia) and Lombardino della Torre (appointed in Vercelli in 1328) also fit well in this category. Both were well connected to the Avignon court and already had links with the dioceses to which they were sent. However, it was the commitment to the papal cause in Italy that made their choice possible. As in the case of Benedetto de Asnago, Lombardino and Carante encountered considerable difficulties in taking possession of the diocese due to the opposition of the local Ghibelline forces.32 This opposition became particularly intense when the possibility of the expedition of Louis the Bavarian emerged, which led the pontiff to focus on figures capable of posing a tangible threat to the Ghibelline ambitions. There was a need for bishops to be more active on the local scene and not resident in Avignon. In Cremona this state of affairs forced the pope to ask for the resignation of Egidio Madalberti, who refused to leave Avignon to take possession of the see, and to assign the episcopal office to the Dominican Ugolino da San Marco from Parma. The new bishop was expressly requested to take possession of the diocese as soon as possible.33 In some dioceses in northern Italy, mainly but not exclusively, in the immediate subiectae to the Church, John XXII appointed bishops of French origin. This 31

Canobbio, ‘Tra episcopio e cattedrale’, pp. 262–63. See Majocchi, ‘Cronotassi dei vescovi di Pavia nei secoli xiv e xv’, pp. 52–53; Cadili, Giovanni Visconti, p. 65; and Andenna, ‘Episcopato e strutture diocesane nel Trecento’, p. 361. Outside Lombardy, it is worth mentioning here the case of Pace da Vedano, appointed as Bishop of Trieste in 1330, who was a member of the entourage of Aicardo di Camodeia in the early 1320s (Cadili, Giovanni Visconti, p. 291). 33 Andenna, ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche dall’età longobarda’, p. 137. 32

Fabrizio Pagnoni

252

phenomenon was limited overall because of the meagreness of the Italian benefices compared to the rich profits accruing from the transalpine ones, but undoubtedly grew from this time onwards.34 In all these cases, they were clergymen strongly involved in Italian affairs, as for instance Arnaud Sabatier, papal nuncio, chamber collector, and officer responsible for controlling the expenses of the inquisitorial offices, who was appointed in Bologna in 1322; Stephan Hugonet, chancellor of Bertrand du Poujet, nominated in Bologna in 1330; Aymery de Châtelus, rector et comes Romandiole, appointed in Ravenna in 1322; Arnaud de Rosette, papal collector in Lombardy, chosen for the see of Asti in 1327; and Guillaume de Villeneuve, a Minor repeatedly employed by the pope ‘circa directionem et fulcimentum exercitus ecclesiae partium Lombardiae’ (for coordinating and sustaining the papal army in Lombardy), who was appointed in Trieste in 1327.35

The End of the Pontificate: Making Peace with the Visconti (1331–1334) The passage of the Visconti to the anti-imperial alliance in the spring of 1329 and the obedience to the Apostolic See in the following month of September represented a decisive turning point in relations between the papacy and the lords of Milan.36 The negotiations led to a phase of relaxation throughout northern Italy, which is also reflected to some extent in the latter episcopal appointments of John  XXII and, subsequently, in those made by Benedict  XII. The most emblematic was certainly the one that interested the main Ghibelline seigniory of the area: in 1331, Giovanni Visconti, uncle of the lord of Milan Azzone, was appointed by the pope as Bishop of Novara. This designation was very important for three reasons. Firstly, because during the negotiations with Avignon the Visconti obtained broad concessions that favoured their relatives and partisans and strengthened their ability to penetrate the diocesan ecclesiastical bodies, and more generally the Milanese Church. Secondly, because the agreement with 34

Guilleman, La Politique bénéficiale du Pape Benoît XII, p. 55. See respectively Vasina, ‘Chiesa e comunità dei fedeli nella diocesi di Bologna’, pp. 154–55; Massacesi, ‘Da Avignone a Cesena a Ravenna’; Lettres communes de Jean XXII, ed. by Mollat, nos 24802, 20352; ASV, Camera Apostolica, Introitus et exitus, 48, fol. 3 r. Guillaume was already Bishop of Sagona, in Corsica, when the pope appointed him at Trieste: Ughelli, Italia sacra, v, col. 504. 36 Biscaro, ‘Le relazioni dei Visconti con la Chiesa’. For a broader contextualization of these facts in the history of Milanese expansion in Lombardy, see Cognasso, ‘L’unificazione della Lombardia sotto Milano’, pp. 219–52, and Soldi Rondinini, ‘Chiesa Milanese e signoria viscontea’. 35

episcopal appointments in northern italy

253

the pope mentioned the possibility of subsequently promoting Giovanni to a higher ecclesiastical status, postulating in this manner his future nomination as Archbishop of Milan. Finally, because the nomination ratified the political influence extended in those years by the Visconti family in the city of Novara, where Giovanni acquired in addition to the title of episcopus, that of dominus.37 The Scaligeri family also benefited from the pacification. In 1332 the pope assigned the vacant see of Verona to Nicola da Villanova, a Benedictine friar from the Veronese monastery of San Zeno and a man linked to the Scaligeri.38 It should be noted, however, that the lords of Verona had already developed their ability to exert control over appointments in the episcopates subject to their political influence. In 1321, for example, Francesco Temprarini, formerly Abbot of San Zeno in Verona and a man particularly close to the court of the Scaligeri, was nominated by the pope as Bishop of Vicenza.39 From 1331 to his death in December 1334, John  XXII made only six episcopal appointments in the dioceses of northern Italy. Despite the small number, it is possible to draw an overall balance and identify trends which his successor Benedict XII subsequently continued. In the first place, as it has been said, the pacification with Avignon would favour the ambitions of the Ghibelline lordships, because it facilitated the episcopal promotion of persons who were appreciated or at least not completely unwelcome to the episcopal seats. Secondly, political relaxation facilitated the active episcopal government by those bishops who, previously appointed, had not yet been able to exercise effective control over their own church.40 Thirdly, there had been a significant change in the profile of the nominees, which no longer corresponded (or at least not so visibly) to the political adherence that had been one of the preferred channels of selection in the previous decade. All this worked in the favour of people who were closely connected to the Apostolic See, through their engagement in the offices of the government of Avignon as well as in diplomatic missions on behalf of the pontiff. Rather eloquent was the appointment of Bertrand de Saint-Geniès (papal chaplain, skilled diplomat, 37

Cadili, Giovanni Visconti, pp.  77–79; Andenna, ‘Una legislazione per legittimare e mantenere una signoria politica’. 38 Varanini, ‘Signoria cittadina, vescovi e diocesi nel Trecento’, p. 879. 39 Varanini, ‘Signoria cittadina, vescovi e diocesi nel Trecento’; Gaffuri and Gallo, ‘Signoria ed episcopato a Padova nel Trecento’. 40 At least at Luni, Brescia, Piacenza, and Como: Ragone, ‘Malaspina Bernabò’; Pagnoni, L’episcopato di Brescia nel basso medioevo, pp.  254–57; Campi, Dell’historia ecclesiastica di Piacenza, p. 79; Martinelli Perelli, ‘Abbondiolo de Asinago notaio in Como’, pp. 401–03.

Fabrizio Pagnoni

254

and trusted member of the Curia) to the metropolitan see of Aquileia, made by John XXII in 1334.41

The Italian Episcopate during the Papacy of John XXII: A Profile The cases reported so far have shown the weight and influence that the politicaldiplomatic affairs had in modifying both the selection process and the channels of promotion to the episcopate during John XXII’s pontificate. At this point it is necessary to try to understand who were these bishops, or in other words, to trace an overall profile of the northern Italian episcopate at that time. Between 1316 and 1334 there were fifty-four episcopal appointments in the dioceses examined. Only in seven cases had those who were chosen already been bishops in other dioceses, and this happened especially on the occasion of the promotion to metropolitan sees.42 Of the forty-seven people promoted, thirteen were recruited from amongst the Mendicant orders, six from the monastic orders,43 and the other twenty-eight from the secular clergy (many of them, at the time of their episcopal consecration, had only minor orders).44 Amongst the latter, six came from the cathedral chapter of the dioceses in which they were appointed.45 To a large extent, the bishops recruited from amongst the Mendicant orders had already served the papacy in Italy. In addition to the brilliant Dominican Benedict de Asnago, Bishop of Como, already mentioned above, it is important to remember that Archbishop Aicardo of Milan was also a Franciscan. At the time of Visconti’s excommunication, some of his most trusted collaborators were Mendicant friars and were subsequently rewarded with an episcopal see.46 Several 41

Brunettin, Bertrando di Saint­Geniès. It is worth mentioning here Cassone della Torre, who was translated from Milan to Aquileia in 1317; Pagano della Torre, from Padua to Aquileia in 1319; Guido Roberti, from Reggio to Ravenna in 1332. See Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, ed. by Eubel. 43 Four of them were Benedictines; two came from the Cluniac order. 44 For example, Federico Cybo (Savona 1317), Egidio Madalberti (Cremona 1318), Ildebrandino Conti (Padua 1319), Bernabò Malaspina (Luni 1320), and Palaino Avogadro (Ivrea 1326) who were all ‘in minoribus constituti’. Ugolino Rossi (Parma 1323) and Bernardo Cario (Piacenza 1323) had not reach the legal age of twenty-three when they were appointed; therefore they received a dispensation ‘super defectu aetatis et ordinis’. See Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, ed. by Eubel, pp. 214, 318, 385, 392; Lettres communes de Jean XXII, ed. by Mollat, nos 9603, 6770, 17074. 45 Of these six cases, four occurred before the declaration of the general reservation in 1322: Concordia, Forlì, Turin, and Genoa. See above, note 8. 46 In addition to Pace da Vedano, the Dominican appointed at Trieste mentioned above, it is worth mentioning another Dominican, Giordano da Montecucco, who was appointed 42

episcopal appointments in northern italy

255

friars were nominated in the Ligurian dioceses, where since the second half of the thirteenth century the designation of Mendicants to the episcopate had become more and more frequent. As in the previous century, they were also appointed at the beginning of the fourteenth century, especially in cases of controversial elections by the local cathedral chapters, which often gave rise to irreconcilable disputes.47 However, it is undeniable that between the 1320s and 1330s many of the Mendicant friars were chosen for the important role they could play in relation to papal politics in Italy. For this reason, they progressively lost the super partes role within the civic political struggles that they had incarnated up to that time. In this perspective, it is interesting to observe what happened at the time of the Italian expedition of Louis the Bavarian in 1327. Relations between the pope and the spiritual Franciscans deteriorated as a result of the conflict with the pretender to the imperial crown. Marginalized by John XXII, the friars found support and protection from Louis, who in 1328 declared the pontiff deposed and nominated the spiritual Pietro Rainalducci da Corbara as the new pope, with the name of Nicholas V.48 In order to give further support to the emperor’s Italian campaign, several spiritual Franciscans were appointed bishops by Nicholas in the vacant dioceses, often in opposition to Avignon’s choice. Perhaps the most emblematic case concerns Cremona, where the Bishop Ugolino was declared dismissed in 1329 by Nicholas V, who nominated his chaplain, the Franciscan Dondino, in Ugolino’s place. Subsequently, the antipope conferred Dondino the incomes of the abbeys of San Lorenzo and San Tommaso, which had been confiscated from the two legitimate abbots, who were active in the camp of John XXII.49 It is not easy to reconstruct the cultural context and the education of these clerics, as biographical information is often scarce, except from a limited number of cases. It is therefore difficult to make precise comparisons with other areas, such as late medieval England where, during the first half of the fourteenth century, one fifth of those who were promoted to the episcopate held a degree in civil law.50 According to the available information, at the time of John XXII, the at Bobbio in 1324, after the pope annulled the capitular election of Enrico Duranti (Cadili, ‘Governare dall’“esilio”’, p. 291, and Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, ed. by Eubel, p. 139). 47 Polonio, ‘Frati in cattedra’. Further analysis of this topic in Dal pulpito alla cattedra. 48 Schmidt, ‘Povertà e politica’; Tabacco, ‘Il papato avignonese’. 49 Andenna, ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche dall’età longobarda’, p. 138. Other Franciscans were appointed at Genoa (Berengario de’ Mari), Savona (Nicolosio), Novara (Giacomo de Spanhay), and Vercelli. See Polonio, ‘Frati in cattedra’, p. 14; Eubel, ‘Der Gegenpapst Nikolaus V und Seine Hierarchie’; Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, ed. by Eubel, passim. See also Benedetti, ‘Frati Minori e Inquisizione’, pp. 90–92. 50 Haines, ‘The Episcopate during the Reign of Edward II’, p. 671.

256

Fabrizio Pagnoni

proportion of graduates in civil law and canon law was broadly balanced. Amongst the main jurists who received an episcopal promotion, it is worth mentioning at least two great professors in canon law, Egidio Madalberti (Bishop of Cremona) and Guido de Guisis (Bishop of Concordia), whose libraries were already famous at that time for the abundance of legal texts. The nomination of prelates with a solid juridical preparation grew considerably under the two successive pontiffs, Benedict XII and Clement VI.51 What seems clear is that a rather large group of bishops nominated by John XXII held important positions at Avignon’s offices: chaplains, auditores causarum, papal subdeacons, councillors, and ambassadors of the Apostolic See. Their number increased further with the successors of John XXII, and by the middle of the fourteenth century, this became probably the main channel of promotion to the episcopate. The majority of these prelates came from the peninsula, but, as it has been shown, Pope John also nominated some Frenchmen who were often close to the Legate Bertrand du Poujet and were constantly involved in Italian affairs.

Conclusions This overview of episcopal appointments in northern Italy in the first decades of the fourteenth century has highlighted the importance of John XXII’s action in encouraging changes that, at least partially, were already underway before his advent to the pontifical throne. His interventions both in the juridical field and on the practice of papal provisions accelerated the spread of the apostolic reservation and, at the same time, led to significant changes in the general characteristics of the Italian episcopate. The adhesion to the Guelph and Angevin political project that John XXII promoted in the peninsula represented for a long time the main channel of promotion to the episcopate and entailed important transformations in the profile of the prelates, such as the large number of curiales amongst those who were appointed. Once these bishops came into possession of their dioceses, they often stood out for the great attention they paid to the government of the local Church, as for instance by encouraging the extensive use of documentation, by trying to re-establish the episcopal authority, or by making important attempts to restore episcopal properties, rights, and jurisdictions.52 51 Andenna, ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche dall’età longobarda’, p. 128; Gianni, ‘Prima di Concordia’, p. 14. See also Stiaffini, ‘Dino da Radicofani’; Brunettin, Bertrando di Saint­Geniès. 52 Pagnoni, ‘L’episcopato lombardo nell’età di Giovanni Visconti’.

episcopal appointments in northern italy

257

Works Cited Archival Sources Città del Vaticano, Archivio Segreto [ASV] Camera Apostolica, Introitus et exitus, 48 Camera Apostolica, Introitus et exitus, 49

Primary Sources Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, sive Summorum pontificum, S. R. E. cardinalium, ecclesiarum antistitum series ab anno 1148 usque ad annum 1431 perducta e documenti stabularii praesertim vaticani collecta, digesta, edita, ed. by Konrad Eubel (Munster: sumptibus et typis Librariae Regensbergianae, 1913) Lettres communes de Jean XXII (1316–1334), ed. by Guillaume Mollat (Paris: de Boccard, 1904–46) Les Registres de Benoît XI: Recueil des bulles de ce pape, publiées et analysées d’après les manuscrits originaux des Archives du Vatican, ed. by Charles Grandjean (Paris: de Boccard, 1883–1905) Les Registres de Boniface VIII: Recueil des bulles de ce pape, publiées et analysées d’après les manuscrits originaux des Archives du Vatican, ed. by George Digard, Maurice Faucon, Antoine Thomas, and Robert Fawtier, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 2nd série, 4, 4 vols (Paris: de Boccard, 1884–1935) Ughelli, Ferdinando, Italia sacra sive de episcopis Italiae, et insularum adjacentium, rebusque abiis praeclare gestis, vol.  iv (Rome: ex Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, 1652) —— , Italia sacra sive de episcopis Italiae, et insularum adjacentium, rebusque abiis praeclare gestis, vol. v (Rome: ex Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, 1653)

Secondary Sources Andenna, Giancarlo, ‘Episcopato e strutture diocesane nel Trecento’, in Storia della Chiesa di Ivrea: Dalle origini al xv secolo, ed. by Giorgio Cracco (Rome: Viella, 1998), pp. 321–94 —— , ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche dall’età longobarda alla fine del xiv secolo’, in Storia di Cremona, vol. v: Il Trecento, ed. by G. Andenna and G. Chittolini (Azzano San Paolo: Bolis, 2007), pp. 2–169 —— ,  ‘Una legislazione per legittimare e mantenere una signoria politica’, in Statuti di Novara del xiv secolo: Edizione critica, ed. by Gianmarco Cossandi and Marta Luigina Mangini (Varese: Insubria University Press, 2012), pp. 361–77 —— , ‘The Lombard Church in the Late Middle Ages’, in A Companion to Late Medieval and Early Modern Milan, ed. by Andrea Gamberini (Leiden: Brill, 2014), pp. 69–92 Angiolini, Enrico, ‘Landi Obizzo (detto Verzuso, Vergiuso o Versuzio)’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. lxiii (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2004), pp. 403–05

258

Fabrizio Pagnoni

Barraclough, Geoffrey, Papal Provisions: Aspects of Church History Constitutional, Legal and Administrative in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford: Blackwell, 1935) Benedetti, Marina, ‘Frati Minori e Inquisizione: Alcuni casi nell’Italia medievale’, Revista Territórios e fronteiras, 9.1 (2016), 83–96 Biscaro, Gerolamo, ‘Le relazioni dei Visconti con la Chiesa: Azzone, Giovanni e Luchino Benedetto XII’, Archivio Storico Lombardo, 47 (1920), 193–271 Boldorini, Alberto, ‘Bartolomeo da Reggio’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. vi (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1964), pp. 762–64 Brunettin, Giordano, Bertrando di Saint­Geniès patriarca di Aquileia (1334–1350) (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2004) Cadili, Alberto, Giovanni Visconti arcivescovo di Milano (1342–1354) (Milan: Biblioteca Francescana, 2007) —— ,  ‘Governare dall’“esilio”: Appunti su frate Aicardo da Camodeia arcivescovo di Milano (1317–1339)’, Nuova rivista storica, 87 (2003), 267–324 Campi, Pier Maria, Dell’historia ecclesiastica di Piacenza di Pietro Maria Campi Canonico di quella Catedrale, vol. iii (Placentia: Giovanni Bazachi stampatore camerale, 1662) Canobbio, Elisabetta, ‘Tra episcopio e cattedrale: successo individuale, affermazione famigliare e istituzioni ecclesiastiche a Como (sec. xiv–prima metà sec. xv)’, in La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano 2. Stato e istituzioni (secoli xiv–xv), ed. by Andrea Gamberini (Rome: Viella, 2017), pp. 257–81 Cognasso, Francesco, ‘L’unificazione della Lombardia sotto Milano’, in Storia di Milano, vol. v (Milan: Treccani, 1955), pp. 3–567 Covini, Maria Nadia, ‘Della Torre Tiberio’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. xxxvii (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1989), pp. 668–69 Dal pulpito alla cattedra: I  vescovi degli ordini mendicanti nel ’200 e nel primo ’300 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2000) De Sandre Gasparini, Giuseppina, ‘Chiese venete e signorie cittadine: vescovi e capitoli frapressione politica e autonomia istituzionale’, in Il Veneto nel medioevo: Le signorietrecentesche, ed.  by Andrea Castagnetti and Gian Maria Varanini (Verona: Banca popolare di Verona, 1995), pp. 313–56 Eubel, Konrad, ‘Der Gegenpapst Nikolaus V und Seine Hierarchie’, Historischer Jahrbuch, 12 (1891), 277–308 Fantoni, Giuliana, ‘Della Torre Cassone’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. xxxvii (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1989), pp. 521–26 Ferraris, Gianmario, ‘I canonici della Cattedrale di Vercelli nel secolo xiv: Linee di ricerca’, in Vercelli nel secolo xiv: Atti del quinto congresso storico vercellese (Vercelli, 28–30novembre 2008), ed.  by Alessandro Barbero and Rinaldo Comba (Vercelli: Saviolo, 2010), pp. 245–92 Gaffuri, Laura, and Donato Gallo, ‘Signoria ed episcopato a Padova nel Trecento: Spunti per unaricerca’, in Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal xiv alla metà del xvi secolo: atti del VII Convegno di storia della Chiesa in Italia (Brescia, 21–25 settembre 1987), ed.  by Giuseppina de Sandre Gasparini, Antonio Rigon, Francesco  G. Trolese, and Gian Maria Varanini, 2 vols (Rome: Herder, 1990), ii, 923–56

episcopal appointments in northern italy

259

Gamberini, Andrea, ‘Chiesa vescovile e società politica a Reggio nel Trecento’, in Il vescovo, la chiesa e la città di Reggio in età comunale, ed. by Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna: Patron, 2012), pp. 183–205 Gaudemet, Jean, ‘De l’élection à la nomination des évêques: Changement de procédure et conséquences pastorales. L’exemple français (xiiie–xive siècles)’, in Il processo di designazione dei vescovi: Storia, legislazione, prassi, ed. by Domingo J. Andrés Gutierrez (Rome: Scuola tipografica San Pio X, 1996), pp. 137–56 Gianni, Luca, ‘La diocesi di Concordia in Friuli. Difesa delle temporalità e consolidamento amministrativo: l’episcopato di Artico di Castello (1317–1331)’, in Vescovi Medievali, ed. by Grado G. Merlo (Milan: Edizioni Biblioteca Francescana, 2003), pp. 165–206 —— ,  ‘Prima di Concordia: Gli anni emiliani del vescovo Guido Guizzi (1307–1334)’, Atti dell’Accademia San Marco, 15 (2013), 9–24 Grillo, Paolo, Milano guelfa (1302–1310) (Rome: Viella, 2013) Guillemain, Bernard, La Cour pontificale d’Avignon: Étude d’une société (Paris: De Boccard, 1966) —— , La Politique bénéficiale du Pape Benoît XII (1334–1342) (Paris: H. Champion, 1952) Haines, Roy Martin, ‘The Episcopate during the Reign of Edward II and the Regency of Mortimer and Isabella’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 56 (2005), 657–709 Jamme, Armand, ‘Des usages de la démocratie: Deditio et contrôle politique des cités lombardes dans le “grand projet” de Jean  XXII’, in Papst Johannes  XXII: Konzepte und Verfahren seines Pontifikats, ed. by Hans J. Schmidt and Martin Rohde, Scrinium Freiburgense, 32 (Berlin: De Guyter, 2014), pp. 279–342 Jugie, Pierre, and Armand Jamme, ‘Poggetto, Bertrando del (Bertrand du Pouget)’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol.  lxxxiv (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2015), pp. 459–66 Majocchi, Piero, ‘Cronotassi dei vescovi di Pavia nei secoli xiv e xv’, in I vescovi dell’Italia settentrionale nel basso medioevo: Cronotassi per le diocesi di Cremona, Pavia e Tortona nei secoli xiv e xv, ed. by Piero Majocchi and Massimo Montanari (Pavia: Università di Pavia, 2002), pp. 47–102 Manselli, Raoul, ‘Un papa in un età di contraddizione: Giovanni XXII’, Studi Romani, 22 (1974), 444–56 Martinelli Perelli, Liliana, ‘Abbondiolo de Asinago notaio in Como: I  cartulari di un professionista della prima metà del Trecento’, in L’età dei Visconti: Il dominio di Milano fra xiii e xv secolo, ed. by Luisa Chiappa Mauri, Laura De Angelis Cappabianca, and Patrizia Mainoni (Milan: La storia, 1993), pp. 393–406 Massacesi, Fabio, ‘Da Avignone a Cesena a Ravenna: Immagini e politica’, in Images and Words in Exile: Avignon and Italy during the First Half of the 14th Century, ed. by Elisa Brilli, Laura Fenelli, and Gerhard Wolf (Florence: Sismel, 2015), pp. 73–89 Mollat, Guillaume, La Collation des bénéfices ecclésiastiques à l’époque des papes d’Avignon (1305–1378) (Paris: De Boccard, 1921) Pagnoni, Fabrizio, L’episcopato di Brescia nel basso medioevo: Governo, scritture, patrimonio (Rome: Viella, 2018) —— , ‘L’episcopato lombardo nell’età di Giovanni Visconti (1331–1354): culture documentarie e di governo, intersezioni signorili’, Studi Storici, no. 1 (2018), 141–70

260

Fabrizio Pagnoni

—— , ‘Rossi Ugolino’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. lxxxviii (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2017), pp. 732–35 Parent, Sylvain, ‘Entre rébellion, hérésie, politique et idéologie: remarques sur les procès de Jean XXII contre les rebelles italiens’, in L’età dei processi: Inchieste e condanne trà politica e ideologia nel ’300, ed.  by Antonio Rigon and Francesco Veronese (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2009), pp. 145–80 Piazzoni, Ambrogio Maria, ‘Concoregio, Rinaldo da’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. xxvii (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1982), pp. 747–51 Polonio, Valeria, ‘Frati in cattedra: I primi vescovi mendicanti (1244–1330)’, in Valeria Polonio, Istituzioni ecclesiastiche della Liguria medievale (Rome: Herder, 2002), pp. 73–113 Ponzini, Domenico, ‘La vita religiosa a Piacenza nel basso medioevo’, in Storia della diocesi di Piacenza, vol.  ii: Dalla riforma gregoriana alla vigilia della riforma protestante, ed. by Pierre Racine (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2009), pp. 345–403 Ragone, Franca, ‘Malaspina Bernabò’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol.  lxvii (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2006), pp. 763–65 Rando, Daniela, ‘Le elezioni vescovili nei secoli xii–xiv: uomini, poteri, procedure’, in Storia di Treviso, vol. ii: Il Medioevo, ed. by Daniela Rando and Gian Maria Varanini (Venice: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 375–97 Rao, Riccardo, Signori di popolo: signoria cittadina e società comunale nell’Italia nord occidentale, 1275–1350 (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2011) Rigon, Antonio, ‘Le elezioni vescovili nel processo di sviluppo delle istituzioni ecclesiastiche a Padova’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Moyen­Age, Temps modernes, 89.1 (1977), 371–409 Ronzani, Mauro, ‘Un aspetto della circolazione degli ecclesiastici: i trasferimenti dei vescovi (Italia comunale, secoli xiii–xiv)’, in Circolazione di uomini e scambi culturali tra città (secoli xii–xiv): Ventitreesimo Convegno internazionale di studi (Pistoia, 13–16 maggio 2011) (Rome: Viella, 2013), pp. 221–41 Sambin, Paolo, ‘Un amico del Petrarca: Ildebrandino Conti e la sua attività spirituale e culturale’, in Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Venezie, vol.  viii (Venice: La Deputazione, 1952), pp. 4–56 Schmidt, Hans-Joachim, ‘Povertà e politica: I  frati degli Ordini mendicanti alla corte imperiale nel xiv secolo’, in Ordini religiosi e società politica in Italia e Germania nei secoli xiv e xv, ed. by. G. Chittolini and K. Elm (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2001), pp. 373–417 Soldi Rondinini, Gigliola, ‘Chiesa Milanese e signoria viscontea’, in Storia religiosa della Lombardia: Diocesi di Milano, ed. by Adriano Caprioli, Antonio Rimoldi, and Luciano Vaccaro (Brescia: La Scuola, 1990), pp. 285–311 Stiaffini, Daniela, ‘Dino da Radicofani’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol.  xl (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1991), pp. 165–67 Tabacco, Giovanni, La casa di Francia nell’azione politica di papa Giovanni XXII (Roma: Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 1953) —— ,  ‘Il papato avignonese nella crisi del francescanesimo’, in Giovanni Tabacco, Spiritualità e cultura nel Medioevo: Dodici percorsi nei territori del potere e della fede (Napoli: Liguori, 1993), pp. 119–49

episcopal appointments in northern italy

261

—— ,  ‘Programmi di politica italiana in età avignonese’, in Aspetti culturali della società italiana nel periodo del papato avignonese, Centro di studi sulla spiritualità medievale, 19 (Todi: Accademia tudertina, 1981), pp. 49–75 Varanini, Gian Maria, ‘Signoria cittadina, vescovi e diocesi nel Trecento’, in Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal xiv alla metà del xvi secolo: atti del VII Convegno di storia della Chiesa in Italia (Brescia, 21–25 settembre 1987), ed.  by Giuseppina de Sandre Gasparini, Antonio Rigon, Francesco  G. Trolese, and Gian Maria Varanini (Rome: Herder, 1990), ii, 869–921 Vasina, Augusto, ‘Chiesa e comunità dei fedeli nella diocesi di Bologna dal xii al xv secolo’, in Storia della Chiesa di Bologna, vol. i, ed. by Paolo Prodi and Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna: Istituto per la storia della chiesa di Bologna, 1997), pp. 97–204 Zanke, Sebastian, ‘Imagined Spaces? The Papal Registers in the Pontificate of John XXII (1316–1334)’, in Images and Words in Exile: Avignon and Italy during the First Half of the 14th Century, ed. by Elisa Brilli, Laura Fenelli, and Gerhard Wolf (Florence: Sismel, 2015), pp. 457–74

Episcopal Appointments and Careers of the Archbishops of Split (1294–1426) Mišo Petrović

S

plit was the oldest diocese encompassing much of medieval CroatiaDalmatia which carried with it considerable weight and importance. Officially the elections of the archbishops of Split were carried out by the cathedral chapter — pending papal confirmation — but the practice differed and depended on the influences, pressures, and power of the various ecclesiastical authorities (pope, chapter, clergy) and secular ones (ruler, communes, rural nobility). Although the period is usually depicted as that of change from the free capitular elections to the system of papal provisions,1 my primary focus will be on observing the individual cases of elections of archbishops and situating them in the context, development, and interests of those competing for control of the elections. The archbishop wielded authority both in his city and in the wider region. The appointment of the archbishop was therefore often contested and troubled by 1

See the selection of the growing literature: Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesitzungen in der Zeit von Gregor IX bis Boniface VIII; Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England; Fonseca, ‘Vescovi, capitoli cattedrali e canoniche regolari (sec. xiv–xvi)’; Barraclough, ‘The Making of a Bishop in the Middle Ages’; Barraclough, Papal Provisions; Pennington, Pope and Bishops, pp. 115–53. Mišo Petrović ([email protected]) is a doctoral candidate at CEU in Budapest; his PhD studies the development of the episcopal office in fourteenth-century Croatia-Dalmatia. His publications include ‘The Church of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia and the Struggle for the Throne of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia (1290–1301)’ and ‘The “Contested” Prelates of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia during the Struggle for the Throne of the Kingdom of Hungary (1382–1409)’. Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 263–287 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120621 BREPOLS

Mišo Petrović

264

frequent political changes in the region. In the period prior to 1290 Split was part of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia ruled by the Árpád dynasty (1102–1301). The local oligarchs, the Šubići, used the interregnum between the dying out of the Árpáds and the arrival of the new dynasty, the Neapolitan Angevins (1301–95), to increase their influence over Croatia-Dalmatia, which diminished during the 1320s when the region, including Split, accepted the suzerainty of Venice. By 1356 the territories of Croatia-Dalmatia were reclaimed by the Hungarian kings, but the death of the last male Angevin king in 1382,2 combined with the Western Schism (1378–1417), caused considerable ecclesiastical and political problems in the region. Between 1398 and 1402 Split was in the midst of civil war when one noble faction backed by the archbishop claimed the city, expelling their opponents. This weakened Split came under the control of King Ladislas of Naples (1377–1414) who in 1403 invaded the kingdom in the hopes of claiming the throne, but by 1409 was forced to sell his possessions to Venice. The true ruler of Split became Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić (c. 1350–1416), a Bosnian nobleman who acted as Ladislas’s regent in the region and firmly ruled over Split as its duke (1403–13). Hrvoje’s ousting from Split and war between Venice and Hungary led Split to again recognize Venetian control in 1420. The thirteenth-century chronicler Thomas, the Archdeacon of Split (c. 1200–68), wrote that the archbishops of Split were elected due to their close connections with the royal dynasty, explaining how the diocese would benefit from electing somebody close to the court.3 These pressures were comparable to the ones exerted over the city by Venice after 1420. The Republic wanted control over all aspects of civic and religious life in the city by accepting only Venetian citizens as archbishops.4 My focus therefore lies in the period in between, which shows changes and disputes of who wields authority over the elections. Curiously, it was also a period of weak control over the region by the secular polities and the full communal development. The fragmentation of power on the local level was contemporary with the centralizing tendencies within the Apostolic See. 2

Louis the Great (r. 1342–82) was succeeded by his daughter, Mary (r. 1382–95), who married Sigismund of Luxemburg (r. 1387–1437), which led to a change in the ruling dynasty. 3 HS, pp. 120–21. As Mladen Ančić pointed out, from fourteen elections mentioned by Thomas in only three cases were the archbishops elected through papal intervention. He also warned about reading Thomas in simple terms, instead concentrating on understanding the context and various interests of those involved in elections. Ančić, ‘Image of Royal Power in the Work of Thomas Archdeacon’, pp. 38–40. 4 Meaning somebody elected from the clergy from Venice (from Grado to Capo d’Argine). For a different interpretation of the events, see Neralić, ‘Svi papini ljudi’.

episcopal appointments and careers of the archbishops of split

265

During this period the popes started to impose their control over the episcopal appointments by involving themselves in rejecting capitular elections, responding to secular and individual petitions, and using the legal framework regarding ecclesiastical disputes.

A Multitude of Interests Royal influence was probably crucial for the election of Archbishop John Buzad (r. 1266–94), a Dominican friar from Hungary.5 Yet by the time of John’s death the situation had changed. Although we lack sources for the exact date of John’s death, by September 1294 the archdeacon of the cathedral chapter, James, was elected.6 He was listed as the elected (archielectus) in the source. To reinforce his position the cathedral chapter appointed him the procurator et vicarius7 of the chapter meaning he could perform all his duties in the diocese except those reserved to the confirmed archbishop.8 By 1297 the pope stated that James had not sought proper confirmation in time; subsequently James gave his letter of resignation to Cardinal Gerard Bianchi, the titular Bishop of Santa Sabina,9 while the pope provided the archbishopric to Peter (r. 1297–1324), the chaplain of Queen Mary of Naples.10 James was the archdeacon, the highest official in the cathedral chapter, and the canons would have consulted the books regarding the proper election procedure,11 so it is strange that they were unaware of the requirement to seek 5

He belonged to the Hahót-Buzád noble family, which during the thirteenth century produced several bans and bishops. His family background and connections associated him with the royal court. On the appointments in Split before the 1290s, see Kovačić, ‘Toma Arhiđakon’. 6 CDC, vii, 184–85, 1 September 1294. 7 CDC, vii, 184, 1 September 1294. 8 The archbishop had to receive papal confirmation and the pallium, a piece of cloth which symbolized his ecclesiastical powers. Upon this the archbishop was to oversee and administer discipline within his province, convene provincial synods, and confirm the elections of his suffragan-bishops and consecrate them. Benson, The Bishop­Elect, p. 168. 9 Cardinal Bianchi served as the papal legate in helping the Neapolitan Angevins reobtain Sicily, depicting the close contacts between the Angevins and the Apostolic See through the reign of several popes. The connection points to a more important role of Bianchi in the removal of James and the appointment of Peter, which is not at first evident from the preserved sources. See Silanos, Gerardo Bianchi da Parma, pp. 151–332. 10 Queen Mary descended from the Hungarian Árpádian royal dynasty. CDC, vii, 277–78, 10 May 1297. 11 Archdeacon Thomas described in detail his election in 1244. He wrote that the necessary

266

Mišo Petrović

papal confirmation.12 Until recently the removal of James and the appointment of Peter was simply understood as a way for the pope to help the Neapolitan Angevins to establish their support in the kingdom,13 while other historians contested this view stating that the popes started to directly intervene in the episcopal appointments in favour of Neapolitan contender Charles Robert only after 1301.14 These views either omitted the importance of the local oligarchy, the Šubići, who controlled most of Croatia-Dalmatia, or completely disregarded the importance of papal-Angevin actions in Croatia-Dalmatia prior to 1301. I took on a different approach by observing the interests and benefits of all involved parties at the end of the thirteenth century.15 Although the appointment of Peter was a concession by Pope Boniface VIII (r. 1294–1303) to an important ally, during the thirteenth century the Apostolic See started to expand its prerogatives by involving itself in disputed elections — often called upon to do so from within the dioceses — and appoint individuals close to the Curia.16 The Angevins had a claim to the throne of Hungary-Croatia and were interested in attracting support from the local nobility. During the 1270s the Šubići rose in power. Paul (r. 1270–1312) obtained the title of the ban (viceroy) of Croatia while his brothers were appointed counts in Split, Šibenik, and Trogir.17 It does not seem that the Angevins were able to provide the noble clan — through grants of lands, personal gifts, titles — anything that the Šubići did not already books were consulted quoting the decisions of the Fourth Lateran (1215). For the election, see HS, pp. 274–79. Compare with Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. and trans. by Tanner, p. 203, pp. 246–48. 12 Another possibility is presented by problems within the Apostolic See itself. James was appointed in 1294, probably during the short reign of Celestine V ( July–December 1294) which was preceded by two years of papal vacancy. 13 Tkalčić, ‘Borba naroda hrvatskoga za anzovinsku kuću proti ugarskomu kralju Arpadovcu’; Szentgyörgy, Borba Anžuvinaca; Dokoza, ‘Papinska diplomacija’. 14 Kosztolnyik, ‘Did the Curia Intervene in the Struggle for the Hungarian Throne during the 1290s?’; Kiessewetter, ‘L’intervento di Niccolò, Celestno V e Bonifacio VIII’, pp. 162–65. 15 Petrović, ‘Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders’. 16 In my article I concentrated on the papal involvement in Zadar and its subordinated dioceses as well as close connections between the mendicant orders and the popes since those appointed were mostly Franciscans. Petrović, ‘Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders’, pp. 14–19. 17 Although the cities were to a degree semi-autonomous, the relationship between the communes and their counts was a complex one often fraught with conflicts. The communes wanted to limit the position of the counts. Also, the Šubići’s authority varied from city to city, being strongest in Šibenik and weakest in Trogir. For more, see Karbić, ‘The Šubići of Bribir’, pp. 46–58.

episcopal appointments and careers of the archbishops of split

267

have.18 Yet the Šubići wanted to reform the ecclesiastical organization in their territory, including the elevation of the parish of Šibenik to a rank of a bishopric. The Šubići used different tactics in their attempts to elevate Šibenik to the status of a bishopric. They exerted pressure on Šibenik’s superior, the Bishop of Trogir, negotiated with the Archbishop of Split, and even cultivated good contacts with the Apostolic See.19 Yet the contacts with the Neapolitan Angevins were the ones which finally facilitated the changes. Immediately following Peter’s appointment, the bishopric of Šibenik was finally established in 1298 by Pope Boniface VIII and on the instigation of the Šubići and the Angevin court in Naples.20 As the communication between the Šubići and the royal court intensified, the plans for Charles Robert’s departure for Hungary-Croatia were set in motion.21 Although conflicts between the clergy and the laity of Šibenik and their spiritual superior, the Bishop of Trogir, over the incomes lasted for a century, the quarrel intensified in the 1270s with calls for a separate diocese of Šibenik.22 The Šubići contribution can be seen not only in the timing of this escalation, but also in the behaviour of the metropolitan Archbishop of Split. In 1274 Archbishop John Buzad confirmed the establishment of the new diocese, but in 1287 he retracted it. He stated that the secular authorities forced him to recognize the independent bishopric. Although he does not name those who threatened him, the Šubići involvement is clear from the context.23 The archbishop’s statements were influenced by the enmity between Split and Trogir and the growing power of the Šubići, backed by allies from Split. John recognized Šibenik during the war between Trogir on the one side and the alliance of the Šubići and Split on the other, but fearing the growing power of the noble family the archbishop later retracted his confirmation.24 In 1288 the pope appointed a three-member committee to solve another conflict between Šibenik and the Bishop of Trogir. One person appointed was Archdeacon James which points to the conclusion that he was a familiar clergyman at the Roman Curia already several years prior to his election as the 18

Klaić, ‘Paulus de Berberio’, pp. 416–17. Karbić, ‘Crkvena politika Šubića’, pp. 137–39. 20 IS, iv, 458–60. 21 For Charles’s ascension to the throne, see Engel, The Realm of St Stephen, pp. 110–11, 128–32. 22 Dujmović, ‘Postanak i razvoj Šibenika od 1066. do 1409. godine’; Barbarić, ‘Šibenik, šibenska biskupija i šibenski biskupi’. 23 CDC, vi, 580–82, 20 March 1287; IS, iii, 292–93; IS, iv, 355; Karbić, ‘The Šubići of Bribir’, pp. 336–37; Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru, i, 202–309. 24 Karbić, ‘The Šubići of Bribir’, p. 337; Novak, Povijest Splita, pp. 180–89. 19

Mišo Petrović

268

Archbishop of Split.25 The committee realized that the clergy of Šibenik, backed by the pressure by the Šubići on the Bishop of Trogir, manufactured some evidence to have the pope grant the parish of Šibenik the status of bishopric. The actions of John and James revealed that the key members of the archbishopric of Split opposed the plans of the Šubići to establish the bishopric of Šibenik. A more compliant archbishop was needed. Peter was a Franciscan friar, a native of Hungary, and the chaplain of Queen Mary.26 The Angevin dynasty, which had well-established affinity for the Franciscans, helped Peter to become the archbishop by directly petitioning the pope.27 Peter was officially appointed in May 1297,28 but only received his pallium after a year in May 1298.29 During this period Peter used the title per sedem apostolicam electus, confirmatus et consecratus to show that while he still did not have the pallium — confirming his powers as the archbishop — he was still properly appointed by the pope.30 The Apostolic See required from elected (arch)bishops directly subordinated to the pope to go to Rome for confirmation while the consecrations were usually conducted by either the pope or the suffragan-bishops. With papal permission Peter could be consecrated by any bishop which was done by the Archbishop of Naples before Peter’s trip to Split.31 This would point to the speed and the care 25

On the background of the conflict in 1288, see Barbarić, ‘Šibenik, šibenska biskupija i šibenski biskupi’, p. 91. 26 Petrus de Ungaria Ordinis Minorum Capellanus appeared in the charter from 1294 in the context of Charles Martel’s — the son of Queen Mary and the father of Charles Robert — planned invasion of Hungary. Since Martel died in 1295, this Peter may have been Mary’s chaplain as both were from Hungary. This adds a new layer to Peter’s appointment to Split. It would mean that he was viewed as a suitable candidate because he was a Franciscan friar, familiar of Mary, and from Hungary. Magyar diplomácziai, ed. by Wenzel, p. 116. 27 Three more Franciscans obtained episcopal appointments due to their connections with the Neapolitan court. Toynbee, St Louis of Toulouse, p. 106. 28 CDC, vii, 277–78, 10 May 1297. 29 CDC, vii, 305–06, 18 May 1298. 30 CDC, vii, 295–97, 11  February 1298. Compare with James who did not have the pallium or the papal confirmation. Peter’s title was also used in Zadar by Alexander of Elpidio (1312–14) who was elected but did not receive the pallium. Also, compare with Benson, The Bishop­Elect, pp. 177–79, and the attempt by archbishops in Germany in the thirteenth century to create an official title humilis minister depicting a prelate who was confirmed by the pope but who still did not receive his pallium. 31 The permission was issued only eleven days after the appointment. CDC, vii, 281, 21 May 1297; also see Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 45–47.

episcopal appointments and careers of the archbishops of split

269

with which Peter was dispatched to Split as it seems that it was important to obtain quick consecration so he could perform his episcopal duties. Peter’s first major task was to oversee the establishment of the bishopric of Šibenik and the appointment of its first bishop. The strong contacts with the Šubići continued as Peter represented Ban Paul Šubić in 1309 during the coronation of Charles Robert as the King of Hungary-Croatia,32 and further consolidated the Šubići’s reign by the establishment of new bishoprics which followed the Šubići’s expansion.33 But in 1311 Peter was excommunicated during a case between him and the commune of Split which was presided by CardinalLegate Gentile.34 During this period the statute of the city of Split was re-edited (1312). In the case of episcopal vacancy, the podestà should convene the Great Council which would ask the canons and the cathedral chapter to appoint a suitable person, ‘friend of the commune’, to manage the Church of Split and to live with the commune in peace.35 While it is hard to say if this was the direct consequence of Peter’s actions, the conflict between the commune and its archbishop had left a mark in the contemporary sources. In 1315 the commune copied Gentile’s excommunication after which Peter publicly read his defence which revealed a very corrupt prelate who mishandled financial income and the episcopal prerogatives of his office.36 The event would point to a further conflict with the commune, but the fact that Peter continued to exhibit his metropolitan authority, despite being excommunicated, indicates that in the conflict with the commune Peter relied on support from the Šubići. This would merit further consideration which is beyond the scope of this work.

32

Antoljak, ‘Ban Pavao Bribirski’, p. 58, 15 June 1309. He established Duvno and Makarska which marked the directions in which the Šubići expanded their influence. Karbić, ‘The Šubići of Bribir’, p. 340. 34 Gentile was sent by the pope to secure Charles’s coronation. See Kiss, ‘The Protection of the Church by Hungarian Royal Decrees’, p. 324. For Peter’s trial and excommunication, see CDC, vii, 247, 22 March 1309; CDC, viii, 289–90, 13 August 1311. 35 In a similar fashion the Great Council would seek audience with the archbishop, cathedral chapter, and other priests to ask them not to appoint foreigners to empty benefices in the diocese, but only those from Split. Statut grada Splita, ed. by Cvitanić, Liber I, cap. 11–12. 36 CDC, viii, 378–81, 8 January 1315; Dokoza, ‘Papinski legat Gentil i Split’. 33

Mišo Petrović

270

The Avignon Papacy Major changes occurred on the local and international level which excluded external secular pressure — from the royal court or local oligarchs — and led to episcopal appointments being decided between the local communities and the popes. The influence of the Šubići over Split deteriorated, and from 1323 the two were at odds, with the commune of Split accepting Venetian rule in 1327, meaning that the noble clan had no influence on further episcopal appointments. The Avignon period of the papacy (1305–78) brought changes at the Curia with popes expanding their rights of collation of benefices by directly involving themselves in episcopal appointments. The growing requirements of papal political engagement — particularly to pacify the Papal States — combined with the expansion of the papal administration led the Curia to try and obtain new sources of income.37 Common services (servitia communia), paid by papally appointed episcopate, became an important source of income for the Curia.38 Following the death of Peter, who died at the Apostolic See, the pope reserved the see of Split,39 which was his right when an incumbent died at the Curia.40 The pope provided Balian,41 the Archbishop of Rhodes, translating him (translatio) to the diocese of Split in 1324.42 Since the relationship between the bishop and his diocese was seen in terms of marriage, only the pope had the right to absolve this union and translate the prelate.43 37

The centralization of the Church is followed in Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, pp. 319–42. For the fiscalization of appointments to ecclesiastical offices, see Partner, The Lands of Saint Peter, pp. 263–85; Lunt, Papal Revenues in the Middle Ages, pp. 81–107. 38 The sources for Peter were not preserved, while from Balian the payments are regular for Split. See MVC. 39 ‘per obitum Petri apud Sedem Apostolicam mediante reservation vacantem’, IS, iii, 308–09; ‘provisionem ipsius ecclesie ea vice dispositioni nostre ac sedis apostolice duximus specialiter reservandam’, CDC, ix, 205–06, 26 September 1324. 40 The pope would forbid the capitular election, either while the see was still occupied or while it was vacant, reserving the appointment for himself. Silano, ‘Episcopal Elections and the Apostolic See’, pp. 173–74. 41 From Baruh, near Acre (Akko) in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. 42 Madijev, Historija, ed. by Morović and Gligo, p. 181. The archiepiscopo Colosensi often confused historians who mixed Rhodes with Kalocsa which is in Hungary. CDC, ix, 205–06, 26 September 1324. 43 A person should not be translated to a see of lesser importance but only to a diocese of comparable size or to a higher dignity. Pennington, Pope and Bishops, pp. 85–100.

episcopal appointments and careers of the archbishops of split

271

Based on Balian’s appearance in the sources, he was the Archbishop of Rhodes between 1321 and 1324.44 The reasons for the move are unclear, but the contemporary chronicler Miha wrote that the pope, on the request of the Grand Master of the Hospitaller Order, removed Balian and translated him to Split.45 The dispute that Balian had with the Hospitaller Order was regarding the income rights which the order owed to the archbishop.46 To improve his position Balian went to Avignon and received papal privileges which improved his economic status. The previous decision was still not fully enforced, and the pope granted Balian certain privileges to improve his financial situation. The income which Balian was to enjoy at Rhodes (1231 gold florins) was considerably more than that earned by the Archbishop of Split at the time (around 600), so his translation was a significant downgrade of his position, intended to mitigate Balian’s conflict with the Grand Master.47 But an additional reason for his transfer can be suggested. While in Avignon, Balian may have come into contact with Bertrand du Pouget, a powerful cardinal sent to Italy by the pope during the 1320s to reclaim the papal lands. Immediately after his appointment as the Archbishop of Split, Balian was tasked to assist the legate in Arezzo (Tuscany) against the supporters of Louis the Bavarian. Although primarily centred in Italy, the legate’s jurisdiction also expanded to Dalmatia, and since the pope relied on Bertrand for his detailed knowledge about the local clergy, it is possible that it was Bertrand who initially suggested Balian’s transfer to Split. Therefore, Balian’s appointment shows how clerics with good ecclesiastical contacts could benefit from the expansion of papal powers and how the popes appointed trusted clergy to a position of local power.48 According to Miha, the contemporary chronicler of Split, Balian died on 28 January 1328 and was buried in the cathedral.49 The election of his successor shows that the popes did not necessarily meddle in the affairs of local dioceses — at least into the ones the pope did not have direct personal interest in — but were 44

An unnamed archbishop was mentioned in 1317 after which the sources are silent until Balian in 1322. Luttrell, The Town of Rhodes, p. 101, n. 366; IS, iii, 308. 45 Madijev, Historija, ed. by Morović and Gligo, p. 181. 46 For the dispute, see Luttrell, The Town of Rhodes, pp. 101–03, pp. 199–202. 47 Luttrell, The Town of Rhodes, pp. 101–03, pp. 199–202. For Split, see HC, p. 459. 48 It should be added that in Italy Bertrand actively exercised control over the episcopal appointment in order to ensure the selection of pro-papal candidates. Pope John XXII, Lettres communes, ed. by Mollat, no. 21382, 14 January 1325. Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, pp. 76–110. Gamberini, ‘Chiesa vescovile e società politica a Reggio nel Trecento’, pp. 188–91. 49 Madijev, Historija, ed. by Morović and Gligo, p. 181.

272

Mišo Petrović

reacting to the petitions from ecclesiastical and secular parties.50 Split’s cathedral chapter was divided between Archdeacon Dominic and Bosolo of Parma, the papal chaplain and canon in Tournay.51 Both petitioned Pope John XXII (r. 1316–34). Dominic is an interesting example of an ambitious offspring of local urban nobility who gradually advanced in the ranks. He came from a noble family of Lucari that was active in the political and everyday life of Split.52 Dominic was mentioned as early as 1311 as a member of the cathedral chapter while from 1324 he was the archdeacon.53 What shows his importance in everyday political life and the support and confidence he had from the commune is that, while still the archdeacon, he was one of two ambassadors selected by the council of Split to represent the city in peace talks during which the commune recognized Venetian suzerainty.54 Dominic’s importance in Split shows that the episcopal power and the communes were entwined with the municipalities, often relying on the authority and the skills of the archbishops.55 Dominic was personally present in Avignon where he and Bosolo, through a representative, renounced their election and left the decision to the pope who summoned a hearing and consulted with some of the cardinals after which the pope appointed Dominic as the archbishop and had him consecrated and provided with the pallium.56 The new archbishop nevertheless remained in Avignon until at least the end of November in order to receive various privileges from the pope.57 It would seem that Dominic’s personal presence in Avignon impressed the pope while his knowledge of the workings at the Curia helped him 50 On the development of the system of petition, see Smith, ‘The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe’, p. 115; Zutshi, ‘Petitioners, Popes, Proctors’. 51 An experienced jurist and one of the longest serving auditors at the papal Curia who was often sent on delicate missions for the Apostolic See. On his career, see Krämer, Dämonen, Prälaten und gottlose Menschen, pp. 370–71. 52 Novak, Povijest Splita, p. 205; Ivanišević, ‘Promišljanje o rodovima Lukari u Splitu i Lukarević u Dubrovniku’, pp. 12–13. 53 Nikolić Jakus, ‘The Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility’, pp. 114–15. 54 CDC, ix, 363–65, 3 October 1327; Listine, i, 368–72. 55 Franco, ‘Episcopal Power and the Late Medieval State’, p. 255. 56 CDC, ix, 420–22, 17 October 1328; IS, iii, 313, 16 November 1328. 57 He was allowed to remain in the possession of his previous benefices, to give to successors of his choosing some churches which served him as a source of income, a position of a canon to a person of his choosing, and to make a last will. CDC, ix, 429–35, 21 October 1328 – 21 November 1328.

episcopal appointments and careers of the archbishops of split

273

to obtain several privileges for himself. The pope could have viewed Dominic as a respected and important prelate to maintain papal control on the local level.58 To corroborate this view is the fact that the pope did not press the matter of electing Bosolo, a cleric with close ties with the Roman Curia whose appointment could have been a reward for Bosolo’s hard work as papal legate and administrator at the Avignon Curia. I believe that the event reveals a bit of John’s personal touch and the development within the papacy. The pope did not want to impose his appointments.59 By surrendering their right to election the individuals would obtain their position while at the same time reaffirming papal prerogatives. Dominic was in the end not elected but provided with his archdiocese by the pope. The elections in Trogir and Zadar during the pontificate of John XXII were also similar as the pope would allow the election of a native but would acquire control over the process itself.60 Dominic’s knowledge and experience in the way the papal Curia operated during this period should not be downplayed. He effectively used both during a turbulent time in his diocese. Also, his attempt to install his nephew, Dominic,61 as the Bishop of Knin shows that the archbishop understood that the papal appointment was the surest way to the episcopal office, so he tried to garner support from the local communes and the Venetian authorities in order to strengthen his nephew’s petition to the Curia.62 Further development of papal control over episcopal appointments can be observed from the appointment and the removal of Archbishop Hugolin (r. 1349–88). Archbishop Dominic died on 22 March 1348,63 and already on 58

Compare with Beattie, ‘Local Reality and Papal Policy’, p. 133. In cases where we lack sources which tells us about curial motives, it is possible that the pope wanted to avoid dissension in the city while upholding papal prerogatives regarding episcopal appointments. For a similar case in Perugia, see Silano, ‘The Apostolic See and the Elections of the Bishops of Perugia’, pp. 504–05. 60 In 1319 Lampredius in Trogir was elected, but the pope later provided him with his see, Nikolić Jakus, ‘The Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility’, pp. 117–18. During 1230–32 John Butovan’s election in Zadar was disputed, but after a hearing the pope confirmed John’s appointment. Brunelli, Storia dellacittà di Zara, p. 444. Both events helped the succeeding popes to appoint their successors. 61 Dominic Younger was the nephew of Archbishop Dominic’s nephew, and with the archbishop’s help first became a canon in 1338 and several years later the archdeacon in Split. He also became an important person in the ecclesiastical and political life of his city, but never obtained the position of the (arch)bishop. Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol u Splitu, p. 56. 62 IS, iii, 323–24. 63 Novak, Povijest Splita, p. 214, wrote that Dominic died from plague. 59

Mišo Petrović

274

14 April a new archbishop elect, Pelegrinus, probably elected by the cathedral chapter, was mentioned in the city charters.64 Later in April 1348 the Venetians, who ruled Split, contacted their representative in Avignon to enlist the support of two important cardinals — Gozzio Battaglia65 and Hugues Roger66 — in order to petition the pope to appoint a Venetian citizen to the archbishopric.67 While Venice had its own unnamed candidate, Pelegrinus was the vicar-general of the Franciscan Order in Bosnia backed by Ban Stephen II Kotromanić. The Bosnian ruler utilized his growing regional influence and contacts with the cathedral chapter in Split to ensure Pelegrinus’s election and was promoting his appointment at the Apostolic See. But the rulers of both Bosnia and Venice were unsuccessful.68 Less than two months after Dominic’s death the pope appointed the Bishop of Senj, John of Pisa, as the new archbishop. In similar fashion as in the case of Balian, the pope reserved the see after the archbishop’s death and provided John with a translation from Senj to Split.69 While the rapidity of the papal appointment shows the speed with which the news travelled from Split to Avignon and points to papal disregard for the local candidates as the election of Pelegrinus was not mentioned, it is possible that the two events happened at approximately same time. In 1333 Pope John XXII had appointed John of Pisa as the Bishop of Senj, where the new bishop met resistance from the local clergy and commune who supported their local candidate, even confirmed by the Archbishop of Split.70 Although his appointment shows that he already had good contacts with the Curia, his continual presence at the Curia probably helped him to get appointed after Dominic’s death in 1348. The pope stated in his bull that John’s appointment was a reward for faithful service in leading his diocese. Here the pope considerably stretched the facts since John spent most of his Senj episcopacy in Avignon, due 64

IS, iii, 325, 14 April 1348. Fratrus Pelegrinus Dei gratia Archielecti. He rose to power during the pontificate of Benedict XII (1334–42), who also appointed Gozzio as the titular patriarch of Constantinople and entrusted him the legation in the papal conflict with the King of Aragon over the island of Sicily. Cardella, Memorie storiche de cardinali della santa Romana chiesa, pp. 145–46. 66 Brother of Pope Clement VI (1342–52) and in 1362 elected as pope but refused due to his advanced age. Wood, Clement VI, p. 62, pp. 98–99. 67 Listine, iii, 77, 26 April 1348. 68 Ančić, Na rubu Zapada, pp. 210–11. 69 CDC, xi, 461–62, 30 May 1348. 70 Kosanović, ‘Državina krčkih knezova’, pp. 94–95. 65

episcopal appointments and careers of the archbishops of split

275

to continual resistance in Senj.71 This points to the need to carefully evaluate the papal bulls of appointment. John never went to Split, whose authorities only listed Pelegrinus in the local charters,72 instead spending time in Pisa where he died in March 1349.73 Already in April Pope Clement VI (r. 1342–52) appointed Hugolin as the archbishop,74 who in June personally obliged himself to pay for his confirmation.75 An anonymous contemporary chronicler described Hugolin as a monk of the Benedictine monastery of Saint Peter in Perugia, adding that he also came from a rich and noble family de Brancha from Gubbio in the Papal States. Despite being a humble Benedictine monk, Hugolin did not shy away from using his material wealth in showing the splendour of his episcopal authority by organizing a magnificent adventus to the city.76 In my opinion the examples of John and Hugolin would suggest that both used papal influence to improve their careers and that the popes already had a list of supplicants who petitioned the Curia for better positions.

The Western Schism From 1378 the Apostolic See was divided between Avignon and Rome whose desire to destroy each other made both of them more susceptible to secular backers. Less visible was the fact that the diminishing of papal power affected the decrease in episcopal authority.77 71

HC, p. 450. For the last time in IS, iii, 325, 25 January 1349. Seeing that the pope cannot confirm Pelegrinus in Split, the Bosnian ban changed his approach and instead aimed at influencing a nearby bishopric. On the suggestion of the Bosnian ban, the pope appointed Pelegrinus as the Bishop of Bosnia on 28 January 1349, after which Pelegrinus is no longer mentioned in sources in Split. Batinić, Djelovanje Franjevaca, pp. 58–59. The appointment of elected candidates to other dioceses in favour of the papally appointed archbishop was one of the methods used by the papacy when met with strong local opposition. Candidates of the Šubići in Šibenik (1298) and Zadar (1314) were translated to other dioceses in favour of the papal appointees. Petrović, ‘Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders’, p. 29. 73 Williman, ‘The Right of Spoil of the Popes of Avignon’, p. 155. 74 The bull of appointment was not preserved. In this charter Hugolin received papal permission to take the spiritual and temporal possession of his archdiocese. CDC, xi, 526–27, 30 April 1349. The consecration and the pallium came several days later. Priručnik za istraživanje hrvatske povijesti, ii, 681, 10 May 1349. 75 MVC, p. 122; HC, p. 459, 25 June 1349. 76 ‘Cutheis’, pp. 194–95. 77 Canning, ‘The Power Crisis during the Great Schism’. 72

Mišo Petrović

276

Judging by the available sources, Hugolin’s long reign in Split was unproblematic until its very end.78 In 1388 in the context of the growing political (civil war) and ecclesiastical (Western Schism) problems, Hugolin came into conflict with the commune of Split. The communal authorities had limited options when clashing with their own archbishop. Before appealing to the pope, the city council decided to obtain backing from King Sigismund (r. 1387–1437), who was informed about the rebellion in the kingdom, and asked to procure a royal letter which would be sent to the pope. The pope was asked to translate Hugolin and appoint a new archbishop, one with whom the commune could live without controversies.79 The communal efforts were successful as Hugolin resigned, but this event can show us the forces at the papal Curia influencing the appointments.80 Hugolin gave his letter of resignation to the papal scribe and Hugolin’s procurator in Rome, Anthony Gualdo, who was able to provide the see of Split for his relative or compatriot, Andrew Benzi of Gualdo.81 Andrew was the rector of the church of Saint Leonard in the diocese of Nocera (near Perugia). In May 1389 he was in Rome where he promised to pay for his appointment,82 and by November he had arrived in Split. In 1402 Andrew was forced into exile. This was due to a very problematic political situation, emphasized by domestic problems in Split83 and the invasion by Ladislas of Naples (r. 1386–1414) — a Roman pope–backed pretender to the throne of Hungary-Croatia. The change in the city occurred during December when Andrew’s opponents took the city. In a matter of days Andrew was removed while Archdeacon Marin de Cutheis became the archbishop elect.84 As a top-ranking prelate in the city, communal notary, and a member of a rich and reputable family, Marin was acceptable to both the Church and the warring 78

‘Cutheis’, p. 195. CDC, xvii, 124–27, 19 January 1388; Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru, ii, 746; CDC, xvii, 152–54, 10 June 1388; Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru, ii, 751. 80 On the influence of important officials of the Curia on the pope and their role in the Papal States, see Lind, ‘Great Friends and Small Friends’, p. 127. 81 IS, iii, 332–33. 82 MVC, no. 392, 30 May 1389. 83 Andrew was involved in the civil war in Split during which he supported the winning faction of the warring noblemen. The exiled noblemen aligned themselves with Ladislas of Naples and upon his invasion were able to reclaim Split and exile Andrew. For more, see Petrović, ‘Politicized Religion’, pp. 45–47. 84 ‘Serie’, pp. 143–44, 6 December 1402; 24 December 1402. 79

episcopal appointments and careers of the archbishops of split

277

factions of citizens.85 After several years of political division, his election could have been intended to stabilize the divided community.86 The citizens of Split decided to obtain the support for their political and ecclesiastical goals from the surrounding political powers and work on having Marin officially recognized.87 In an unratified treaty with Bosnian King Ostoja (d. 1418), an ally of King Ladislas, the citizens demanded that they never again be forced to take another ‘foreigner’, meaning not that they were necessarily against foreigners but that they wanted to control the appointment of the archbishop.88 The pope in Rome heavily relied on Ladislas of Naples, so he rejected Marin and on the king’s suggestion appointed Peregrin of Aragon on 18 April 1403.89 Andrew did not renounce his archbishopric but was instead translated to Samaria, which was a titular church in Palestine.90 Andrew was therefore exiled by both the citizens of Split and the pope in Rome. This event in fact showed the division in understanding who oversaw the episcopal election during the Western Schism. The pope, with the actual power and sometimes backed by the secular authority, often rejected the chapter’s choices and appointed his own candidates. The local communes and the clergy demanded control of the elections and believed that they still had the right to appoint their spiritual leader. In 1403 papal support of Ladislas’s bid for the Hungarian throne created a rupture in the relationship between the pope and Sigismund which, among other things, came down to the question of who has the right to appoint the episcopates of the kingdom. Before the rupture both the pope and the king respected each other’s zones of influence, and the pope regularly confirmed Sigismund’s candidates while the pope appointed archbishops in Split and Zadar. In 1404 Sigismund published his Decretum which curtailed the papal rights as Sigismund claimed the title of the patron and defender of all the churches in the kingdom.91 Sigismund would keep the dioceses of his political enemies vacant, appointing instead governors and collecting diocesan incomes, while 85

IS, iii, 357–58. Beattie, ‘Local Reality and Papal Policy’, p. 134. 87 IS, iii, 357; Novak, Povijest Splita, p. 323. 88 Brković, ‘Srednjovjekovne isprave bosansko-humskih vladara Splitu’, pp.  380–84, 15 December 1402. 89 Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru, ii, 840. 90 IS, iii, 354–56; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol u Splitu, p. 25; HC, p. 459. 91 The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, ed. by Bak, pp. 29–30; Bárd, ‘The Break of 1404 between the Hungarian Church and Rome’. 86

Mišo Petrović

278

rarely appointing bishops directly.92 In royal documents the dioceses in CroatiaDalmatia not controlled by the king were listed as vacant or had names of Sigismund’s candidates.93 Sigismund never recognized Peregrin, who was Ladislas’s candidate. After Peregrin’s death (before 8  May 1409)94 three individuals, backed by secular and/or ecclesiastical powers, claimed the position for themselves. By December 1409 the cathedral chapter elected its archdeacon, Duimus,95 who in 1410 obtained confirmation from the Pisan Pope John XXIII.96 In the next year the pope revoked the confirmation and instead promoted his own candidate, Peter of Pag, as the new archbishop. Peter was resisted in Split by Sigismund and the commune, so instead stayed at the Apostolic See and obtained a position there.97 Peter, a Franciscan friar, doctor of theology, and the Bishop of Faenza in Romagna (1406–11), participated at the Council of Pisa in 1409, which created the Pisan papacy, and from there he probably came into contact with future Pope John XXIII or the two already knew each other from before.98 Some historians presumed that the inconsistent papal actions came about because of opposition from Sigismund, but the pope did not appoint Sigismund’s candidate, Andrew Benzi, but rather his own.99 Benzi was the former archbishop who found shelter at the royal court and actively served Sigismund as royal governor of vacant dioceses and chief royal diplomat. John XXIII knew about Sigismund’s opposition, so on the same day as the pope confirmed Duimus, he appointed Andrew as the Archbishop of Thebes, probably in order to stop Andrew from trying to reclaim Split.100 I think that these events show the complete disarray within papal politics as the pope first recognized Duimus and 92

Hunyadi, ‘The Western Schism and Hungary’, pp. 51–52. For instance, as the Archbishop of Split Andrew was still listed, without mentioning Peregrin. ‘Nekoliko isprava s početka 15. stoljeća’, ed. by Šišić, p. 250, 15 April 1405; p. 262, 28 November 1405; p. 267, 22 April 1406; p. 314, 14 November 1408. 94 ‘Serie’, pp. 44–45, 8 May 1409. 95 Duimus de Judicibus or Domnius Giudici from the family of Lucari from Split, which would mean that he was very distant relative of Archbishop Dominic Lucari. Bellwald, Erzbischof Andreas bei Benzi von Gualdo, p. 43, 24 December 1409. 96 Today referred to as Antipope John XXIII (Baldassare Cossa). 97 HC, p. 460, 11 August 1410; p. 460, 19 October 1411: ‘Cubicularius Summi Pontificis et registrator signatarum’. Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine, p. 269. 98 Neralić, ‘Udio Hrvata u papinoj diplomaciji’, p. 95. 99 For the opinion, see Neralić, ‘Udio Hrvata u papinoj diplomaciji’, p. 95. 100 HC, p. 460; Bellwald, Erzbischof Andreas bei Benzi von Gualdo, p. 44, 11 August 1410. 93

episcopal appointments and careers of the archbishops of split

279

opposed the royal candidate, and then decided to oppose both the royal and local candidates in order to promote his own. As mentioned, King Sigismund tried to have Andrew reinstated, and in February 1412 the king invoked his patronage rights over the Church in an attempt to force the citizens of Split to renounce Peter of Pag and Duimus and to reinstate Andrew, but with no success.101 By August Sigismund decided to take a different approach by backing Duimus as the archbishop, as Duimus was listed as the archbishop in the Hungarian royal charters.102 Due to Sigismund’s rapprochement with Pope John XXIII the pope had Andrew appointed as the Archbishop of Kalocsa-Bács, the second most important archdiocese in the kingdom.103 Although Duimus lacked papal and royal support, he could count on local ecclesiastical and secular authorities in backing his reign and was able to obtain royal support. Between 1403 and 1413 the true ruler of Split was Duke Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić.104 Hrvoje wanted to be a mediator between Venice and Sigismund, in order to preserve his territorial expansion and privileges between the king, to whom Hrvoje was often unloyal, and Venice, which after 1409 expanded its possessions in Dalmatia and presented serious threat to both Hrvoje and Split. Duimus had the duke’s support and acted as his main diplomat.105 Curiously, several months after Sigismund reinstated Duimus, on royal instigation the commune of Split overthrew Hrvoje ( June 1413) which would suggest that the king viewed acceptance of Duimus as a way to approach the commune and persuade them to return to the royal authority. Duimus remained as a chief communal envoy to the court of the king.106 It should be stated again that Duimus was not only influential as the archbishop of the city but as a member of an important noble family. Due to papal opposition Duimus could not officially be invested with his diocese. The cathedral chapter, in order to strengthen Duimus’s position, 101

Ančić, ‘Liber Bullarum’, pp. 247–48, 14 February 1412; Guerrieri, ‘Andrea di Pietro di Gionta dei Benzi da Gualdo’, pp. 501–02; Bellwald, Erzbischof Andreas bei Benzi von Gualdo, p. 45. 102 Until 1435, but this is because Sigismund completely lost Split to Venice several years after this, but he kept referring to Duimus as the archbishop until his death, stating officially the Hungarian claim on Split. Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, p. 84. 103 HC, p. 197, 4 January 1413. 104 Šišić, Vojvoda Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i njegovo doba, pp. 159–237. 105 Listine, vi, 78–82, 8 April 1410; p. 135, 22 January 1411. 106 Šišić, Vojvoda Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i njegovo doba, p.  226; Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru, ii, 857–61.

Mišo Petrović

280

appointed him as the vicar of the diocese meaning that he was performing all the duties of the archbishop but had no right to wield the archbishop’s title.107 The papal resistance and the decision by the chapter are the probable reasons why between 1409 and 1416 the position of the archbishop in the city charters was always listed as vacant. From December 1415 Duimus reappeared in the papal records,108 and from January 1416 he was regularly mentioned as the archbishop in Split.109 The change occurred in the context of the Council of Constance (1414–18) where all popes were dethroned and Christendom was unified. The dominant position was maintained by King Sigismund, elected German emperor in 1411, who summoned the council. Sigismund obtained consent from the gathered cardinals for royal patronage over all the ecclesiastical appointments on Sigismund’s territories, while the pope would only confirm royal candidates.110 As we have seen, Duimus had the support of Duke Hrvoje, the Church of Split, the citizens, and in time was able to obtain the support of King Sigismund. From September 1418 another war between Hungary-Croatia and Venice broke out as the Venetians targeted Split and Trogir, which they conquered by mid-1420. In July 1420 the city council of Split sent several representatives to Venice to offer terms of surrender to the Serenissima. The goal was to preserve privileges that Split obtained under the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, but two requests dealt with the position of the archbishop. The council asked Venice to allow Duimus to remain in his position as the archbishop while the cathedral chapter added a clause that the election of the Archbishop of Split be done by the clergy and the citizens of Split (‘per clerum et nobiles dicte civitatis’).111 The decision shows the intertwining between lay and secular power as the sons of the noble families of the city occupied important positions in the cathedral chapter. The local nobility did not necessarily use the opportunity to intervene in ecclesiastical affairs, but this connection led to the chapter and the commune sharing common interests regarding episcopal elections.112 The change reflected 107

‘Dominus Duymus electus Spalatensis et Vicarius per Capitulum dictae ecclesiae deputatus, et Gubernator Ecclesiae supradictae et ipsum Capitulum Spalatense’, IS, iii, 361. 108 Promising to pay for his servitia. MVC, no. 494, 11 December 1415; no. 575, 9 August 1419. 109 ‘Serie’, pp. 44–45, 8 May 1409; pp. 127–28, 28 January 1416. 110 Hoensch, Kaiser Sigismund, pp. 191–278; Mályusz, Das Konstanzer Konzil, p. 8; Stump, The Reforms of the Council of Constance, pp. 39–40. 111 Listine, viii, 24–29, 9 July 1420; Novak, Povijest Splita, pp. 350–56. 112 See Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol u Splitu, pp. 46–84; Ronzani, ‘Vescovi, capitoli e strategie famigliari nell’Italia comunale’.

episcopal appointments and careers of the archbishops of split

281

the way in which the medieval communes operated as the leading citizens saw that it was their sole right to administer the city, while excluding the rest of the population from political and ecclesiastical questions. A similar clause was found in Šibenik whose citizens demanded the same thing in 1412.113 Venice rejected both requests. The main reason for the rejections was the desire by Venice to match their political power with their ecclesiastical control. La Serenissima placed the citizens of Venice as administrators in the Dalmatian cities, and they wanted the same with the bishops. Bishops opposing Venice were forced to go into exile, such as Duimus and Simon Dominis of Trogir (r. 1403–23), both finding shelter with Sigismund after Venice occupied their cities.114 On the other hand, those bishops who were amicable towards the Venetian authorities were left in power, such as Bogdan of Šibenik (r. 1402–36) and Luke of Zadar (r. 1400–20) while Peter of Pag (r. 1411–26) was welcomed to Split by the new Venetian authority and even described as faithful to Venice by the Venetians themselves.115 Yet in both situations, once the amicable bishops died or when exiled bishops left their dioceses, Venice would appoint as bishops individuals coming from the Venetian citizenry, and this practice remained, with few exceptions, throughout most of the fifteenth century.116 The Venetian takeover therefore represented the defeat of the local and papal interests in the appointment, and the victory of the political considerations.

Conclusion Twelve individuals were elected or appointed as the archbishops of Split during the period researched.117 Only nine were able to become archbishops. Five individuals were elected by the chapter, but not a single person was confirmed by the pope. Dominic (1328) renounced his election releasing the right into the papal hand, while the pope at first confirmed Duimus (1409) but then tried to replace him with a papal candidate. Local candidates were rejected because of royal/local opposition or show papal disregard for local elections citing papal 113

Barbarić, ‘Šibenik, šibenska biskupija i šibenski biskupi’, p. 108. Neralić, ‘Udio Hrvata u papinoj diplomaciji’, p. 95; Novak, Povijest Splita, pp. 354–55. 115 Listine, viii, 62, 64, 30 December 1420. 116 Pederin, Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika u Dalmaciji, p. 32. 117 James (1294–97), Peter (1297–1324), Balian (1324–28), Dominic Lucari (1328–48), Pelegrin (1348–49), John of Pisa (1348–49), Hugolin Branca (1348–88), Andrew Benzi (1389–1402), Marin Cutheis (1402–03), Peregrin of Aragon (r. 1403–09), Duimus Lucari (1409–35), Peter of Pag (1410–26). 114

Mišo Petrović

282

prerogatives. Only two individuals were appointed on royal instigation.118 This occurred when the interests of the papacy and the secular rulers aligned, as is evident with the popes and the Neapolitan Angevins. Consequently, most candidates were appointed due to their contacts with the Apostolic See. Split was too far from the Apostolic See (or unimportant) for the popes to pursue any political programme. Instead, the popes responded to petitions from groups and individuals weighing in the strengths of the local communities and secular polities. The papal candidates show a wide variety of backgrounds, originating from both within and outside of the Papal States,119 reflecting the appeal which the Apostolic See had for ambitious prelates who hoped that an appointment by the pope would propel the prelate’s career. In the background of these developments and with the gradual diminishing of episcopal authority, the local municipalities gradually developed their ideas of control over the episcopal elections. First the commune demanded that the ‘friends of the commune’ be appointed. With the Western Schism papal authority weakened while the communes became bolder. The connections between the communal elites and the cathedral chapter must be emphasized. Almost all locally elected candidates were the chapter’s archdeacons and came from the urban nobility.120 These examples show the firm connections between the leading families whose junior members filled the ranks of the cathedral chapter, therefore linking the chapter’s interests with those of the leading strata. While the junior members of these elites filled the highest ranks of the chapter, the family of Lucari had considerable influence over the chapter providing the archdiocese with two archbishops and other members of the chapter, more than other families, which would merit a further investigation. But this intertwining of the elites and the chapter also meant that both institutions had a common goal: to control the local Church by controlling the episcopal elections.

118

Peter in 1297 and Peregrin of Aragon in 1403. Balian of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1324, John of Pisa in 1348, Peter of Pag in 1411, while Hugolin de Brancha in 1449 and Andrew Benzi in 1489 came from the Papal States. 120 Except Pelegrinus in 1348, they were James (1294), Dominic Lucari (1328) (and his nephew), Marin Cutheis (1402–03), and Duimus Lucari (1409). 119

episcopal appointments and careers of the archbishops of split

283

Works Cited Primary Sources CDC: Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae: Diplomatički zbornik Kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije, ed. by Tadija Smičiklas, Marko Kostrenčić, and Emilij Laszowski, vols i–xviii (Zagreb: JAZU, 1843–1990) ‘Cutheis’: ‘A Cutheis Tabula’, in Legende i kronike [Legends and Chronicles], ed. by Hrvoje Morović and Vedran Gligo (Split: Čakavski sabor, 1977), pp. 187–202 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. i: Nicaea I to Lateran V, ed. and trans. by Norman Tanner (London: Sheed & Ward, 1990) Engel, Pál, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 1301–1457 [The secular archontology of Hungary], vol. i (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1986) HC: Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, sive Summorum pontificium, ed. by Konrad Eubel, vol. i (Munster: Typis Librariae Regensbergianae, 1913) HS: Toma Arhiđakon, Historia Salonitana, trans. by Olga Perić, ed. by Mirjana Matijević Sokol (Split: Književni krug Split, 2003) IS: Daniele Farlati, Illyricum sacrum, vols iii–iv (Venice: Apud Sebastianum Coleti, 1765–69) Pope John XXII, Lettres communes, analysées d’après les registres dits d’Avignon et du Vatican, ed. by G. Mollat, 16 vols (Paris, 1904–47) The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, ed. by János Bak, vol. ii: 1301–1457 (Salt Lake City: Schlacks, 1992) Listine: Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga Slavenstva i Mletačke Republike [Charters about the relationship between South Slavs and the Venetian Republic], ed. by Šime Ljubić, vols i–x (Zagreb: JAZU, 1868–91) Madijev, Miha de Barbezanis, Historija [History], in Legende i kronike [Legends and Chronicles], ed. by Hrvoje Morović and Vedran Gligo (Split: Čakavski sabor, 1977), pp. 153–84 Magyar diplomácziai emlékek az Anjou­korból, ed. by Gusztáv Wenzel, vol. i (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Történelmi Bizottsága, 1874) MVC: Monumenta Vaticana Croatica: Camera apostolica; Obligationes et solutiones; Camerale primo (1299–1560), ed. by Josip Barbarić, vol. i (Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 1996) ‘Nekoliko isprava s početka 15. stoljeća’ [Several charters from the beginning of the fifteenth century], ed. by Ferdo Šišić, Starine, 39 (1938), 129–320 Priručnik za istraživanje hrvatske povijesti u tajnom vatikanskom arhivu od ranog srednjeg vijeka do sredine xviii. stoljeca (Schedario Garampi) [Manual for researching Croatian history in the Vatican secret archives], ed.  by Jadranka Neralić, vols  i–ii (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2000) ‘Serie’: ‘Serie dei reggitori di Spalato’, Bullettino di archeologia e storia Dalmata, 13 (1890), pp. 16–168 Statut grada Splita [Statute of Split], ed. by Antun Cvitanić (Split: Književni krug, 1987)

284

Mišo Petrović

Secondary Sources Ančić, Mladen, ‘Image of Royal Power in the Work of Thomas Archdeacon’, Povijesni prilozi, 22 (2002), 29–40 —— , ‘Liber Bullarum’, Fontes: izvori za hrvatsku povijest, 20 (2014), 231–48 —— , Na rubu Zapada: tri stoljeća srednjovjekovne Bosne [On the fringe of the West: Three centuries of the Medieval Bosnia] (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2001) Antoljak, Stjepan, ‘Ban Pavao Bribirski “roatorum dominus”’ [Ban Paul of Bribir], Radovi JAZU u Zadru, 19 (1972), 5–62 Barbarić, Josip, ‘Šibenik, šibenska biskupija i šibenski biskupi’ [Šibenik, its diocese and its bishops], in Sedam stoljeća šibenske biskupije, ed.  by Vilijam Lakić (Šibenik: GK ‘J. Šižgorić’, 2001), pp. 79–164 Bárd, Imre, ‘The Break of 1404 between the Hungarian Church and Rome’, Ungarn Jahrbuch, 10 (1979), 59–65 Barraclough, Geoffrey, ‘The Making of a Bishop in the Middle Ages: The Part of the Pope in Law and Fact’, Catholic Historical Review, 19 (1933), 275–319 —— , Papal Provisions: Aspects of Church History, Constitutional, Legal and Administrative in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1935) Batinić, Mijo Vjenceslav, Djelovanje Franjevaca u Bosni za prvih šest viekova njihova boravka [The Franciscans in Bosnia during their first six centuries there] (Zagreb: Dionička tiskara, 1881) Beattie, Blake, ‘Local Reality and Papal Policy: Papal Provision and the Church of Arezzo, 1248–1327’, Mediaeval Studies, 57 (1995), 131–53 Bellwald, Hans, Erzbischof Andreas bei Benzi von Gualdo: Ein Helfer Kaiser Sigismunds im großen Schisma (Gossau: J. Brücker, 1957) Benson, Robert, The Bishop­Elect: A  Study in Medieval Ecclesiastical Office (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968) Brković, Milko, ‘Srednjovjekovne isprave bosansko-humskih vladara Splitu’ [Medieval charters that rulers of Bosnia and Hum gave to Split], Starohrvatska prosvjeta, 36 (2009), 371–402 Brunelli, Vitaliano, Storia dellacittà di Zara (Venice: Istituto Veneto di Arti Grafiche, 1913) Canning, Joseph, ‘The Power Crisis during the Great Schism (1378–1417)’, in Ideas of Power in the Late Middle Ages, 1296–1417 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 165–90 Cardella, Lorenzo, Memorie storiche de cardinali della santa Romana chiesa, vol. ii (Rome: Pagliarini, 1793) Dokoza, Serđo, ‘Papinska diplomacija i dolazak anžuvinske dinastije na hrvatsko-ugarsko prijestolje’ [Papal diplomacy and the arrival of the Angevin dynasty on the CroatianHungarian throne], in Hrvatska srednjovjekovna diplomacija [Croatian medieval diplomacy], ed. by Mladen Andrlić and Mirko Valentić (Zagreb: Diplomatska akademija Ministarstva vanjskih poslova Republike Hrvatske, 1999), pp. 271–84 —— ,  ‘Papinski legat Gentil i Split’ [Legate Gentile and Split],  Kulturna baština,  31 (2002), 79–98

episcopal appointments and careers of the archbishops of split

285

Dujmović, Frane, ‘Postanak i razvoj Šibenika od 1066. do 1409. godine’ [Foundation and development of Šibenik from 1066 to 1409], in Šibenik: spomen­zbornik o 900. obljetnici (Šibenik: Muzej grada Šibenika, 1976), pp. 88–99 Engel, Pál, The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526 (London: I. B. Tauris, 2001) Fonseca, Cosimo Damiano, ‘Vescovi, capitoli cattedrali e canoniche regolari (sec. xiv– xvi)’, in Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal xiv alla meta del xvi secolo: atti del VII Convegno di storia della Chiesa in Italia (Brescia, 21–25 settembre 1987), ed. by Giuseppina de Sandre Gasparini and others, 2 vols (Rome: Herder, 1990), i, 83–98 Franco, Bradley R., ‘Episcopal Power and the Late Medieval State: Siena’s Bishops and the Government of the Nine ’, Viator, 45 (2014), 255–70 Gamberini, Andrea, ‘Chiesa vescovile e società politica a Reggio nel Trecento’, in Il vescovo, la chiesa e la città di Reggio in età comunale, ed. by Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna: Patron, 2012), pp. 183–205 Ganzer, Klaus, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen in der Zeit von Gregor  IX. bis Bonifaz VIII.: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Reservationen, Forschungen zu kirchlichen Rechtsgeschichte und zum Kirchenrecht, 9 (Cologne: Böhlau, 1968) Guerrieri, Ruggero, ‘Andrea di Pietro di Gionta dei Benzi da Gualdo, vescovo di Spalato e di Sion arcivescovo di Colocza e l’opera sua alla corte di re Sigismondo ed al Concilio di Costanza’, Bollettino per l’Umbria, 18 (1912), 497–512 Harvey, Katherine, Episcopal Appointments in England, c.  1214–1344: From Episcopal Election to Papal Provision (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014) Hoensch, Jörg, Kaiser Sigismund, Herrscher an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit, 1368–1437 (Munich: Beck, 1996) Hunyadi, Zsolt, ‘The Western Schism and Hungary: From Louis  I to Sigismund of Luxembourg’, Chronica, 13 (2017), 45–53 Ivanišević, Milan, ‘Promišljanje o rodovima Lukari u Splitu i Lukarević u Dubrovniku’ [Some thoughts on the nobility of Lukari in Split and Dubrovnik], Kulturna sadašnjost, 41 (2015), 5–40 Karbić, Damir, ‘Crkvena politika Šubića Bribirskih do sloma Kliške grane u 1356’ [Ecclesiastical policy of the Šubići of Bribir until the fall of the branch of the counts of Klis (1356)], in Humanitas et litterae: Zbornik u čast Franje Šanjeka, ed. by Lovorka Čoralić and Slavko Slišković (Zagreb: Dominikanska naklada Istina; Kršćanska sadašnjost, 2009), pp. 137–58 —— , ‘The Šubići of Bribir: A Case Study of a Croatian Medieval Kindred’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central European University, Budapest, 2000) Kiessewetter, Andreas, ‘L’intervento di Niccolò, Celestno V e Bonifacio VIII nella lotta per il trono ungherese (1290–1303)’, in Bonifacio  VIII: Ideologia e azione politica, ed. by Ilaria Bonincontro (Rome: Instituti storico italiano, 2006), pp. 139–98 Kiss, Gergely, ‘The Protection of the Church by Hungarian Royal Decrees’, in Ecclesia et Violentia: Violence against the Church and Violence within the Church in the Middle Ages, ed. by Radosław Kotecki and Jacek Maciejewski (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), pp. 313–32

286

Mišo Petrović

Klaić, Nada, ‘Paulus de Berberio, banus Croatorum dominus et Bosne’, Arhivski vjesnik, 17/18 (1974/75), 409–23 Kosanović, Ozren, ‘Državina krčkih knezova – Vinodol, Senj i Krk od početka 14. Stoljeća do 1420. godine’ [The lands of counts of Krk – Vinodol, Senj and Krk from the beginning of the fourteenth century until 1420] (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Zagreb, 2012) Kosztolnyik, Zoltán, ‘Did the Curia Intervene in the Struggle for the Hungarian Throne during the 1290s?’, in Régi és új peregrináció: Magyarok külföldön, külföldiek Magyarországon, vol.  i, ed.  by Imre Békési (Budapest: Nemzetközi Hungarológiai Kongresszuson, 1993), pp. 140–58 Kovačić, Slavko, ‘Toma Arhiđakon, promicatelj crkvene obnove i splitski nadbiskupi, osobito njegovi suvremenici’ [Thomas the Archdeacon, promoter of ecclesiastical reform, and the archbishops of Split, particularly his contemporaries], in Toma Arhiđakon i njegovo doba [Thomas the Archdeacon and his time], ed.  by Mirjana Matijević Sokol and Olga Perić (Split: Književni krug, 2004), pp. 46–55 Krämer, Thomas, Dämonen, Prälaten und gottlose Menschen: Konflikte und ihre Beilegung im Umfeld der geistlichen Ritterorden (Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2015) Lind, Gunner, ‘Great Friends and Small Friends: Clienteles and the Power Elite’, in Power Elites and State Building, ed. by Wolfgang Reinhard (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 123–48 Lučić, Ivan, Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru [Historical Accounts about Trogir], vols i– ii (Split: Čakavski sabor, 1979) Lunt, William, Papal Revenues in the Middle Ages, vol. i (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934) Luttrell, Anthony, The Town of Rhodes, 1306–1356 (Rhodes: Techne, 2003) Mályusz, Elemér, Das Konstanzer Konzil und das königliche Patronatsrecht in Ungarn (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1959) Mollat, Guillaume, The Popes at Avignon: 1305–1378 (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1965) Neralić, Jadranka, Put do crkvene nadarbine: Rimska kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću [The road to the ecclesiastical benefice: The Roman Curia and Dalmatia in the fifteenth century] (Split: Književni krug, 2007) —— ,  ‘Svi papini ljudi: dalmatinska biskupska sjedišta u 15. stoljeću između Rima i Venecije’ [All the papal men: Dalmatian bishopric seats in the 15th century between Rome and Venice], Historijski zapisi, 84 (2016), 53–82 —— , ‘Udio Hrvata u papinoj diplomaciji’ [The activities of Croats in the papal diplomacy], in Hrvatska srednjovjekovna diplomacija [Medieval Croatian diplomacy], ed.  by Mladen Andrlić and Mirko Valentić (Zagreb: Diplomatska akademija Ministarstva vanjskih poslova Republike Hrvatske, 1999), pp. 89–118 Nikolić Jakus, Zrinka, ‘The Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility: Examples of Split, Trogir and Zadar’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central European University, Budapest, 2004) Novak, Grga, Povijest Splita [History of Split], vol. i (Split: Čakavski sabor, 1978) Ostojić, Ivan, Metropolitanski kaptol u Splitu [Metropolitan chapter in Split] (Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1975)

episcopal appointments and careers of the archbishops of split

287

Partner, Peter, The Lands of Saint Peter: The Papal State in the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972) Pederin, Ivan, Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika u Dalmaciji (1409–1797) [The Venetian administration, economy, and politics in Dalmatia] (Dubrovnik: Časopis ‘Dubrovnik’, 1990) Pennington, Kenneth, Pope and Bishops: The Papal Monarchy in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1984) Petrović, Mišo, ‘Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders: The Church of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia and the Struggle for the Throne of the Kingdom of HungaryCroatia (1290–1301)’, Banatica, 26 (2016), 11–31 —— ,  ‘Politicized Religion: The “Contested” Prelates of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia during the Struggle for the Throne of the Kingdom of Hungary (1382–1409)’, in Papers and Proceedings of the Third Medieval Workshop in Rijeka, ed. by Kosana Jovanović and Suzana Miljan (Rijeka: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, 2018), pp. 37–53 Ronzani, Mauro, ‘Vescovi, capitoli e strategie famigliari nell’Italia comunale’, in Storia d’Italia. Annali, vol. ix: La Chiesa e il potere politico dal Medioevo all’età contemporanea, ed. by Giorgio Chittolini and Giovanni Miccoli (Turin: Einaudi, 1986), pp. 99–146 Silano, Giulio, ‘The Apostolic See and the Elections of the Bishops of Perugia in the Duecento and Trecento’, Mediaeval Studies, 50 (1988), 488–511 —— ,  ‘Episcopal Elections and the Apostolic See: The Case of Aquileia, 1251–1420’, in Diritto e Potere Nella Storia Europea, vol. i (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1982), pp. 163–94 Silanos, Pietro, Gerardo Bianchi da Parma: La biografia di un cardinale­legato duecentesco (Rome: Herder editrice e libreria, 2010) Smith, Thomas W., ‘The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe’, History Compass, 13 (2015), 110–21 Stump, Philip, The Reforms of the Council of Constance (1414–1418) (Leiden: Brill, 1994) Szentgyörgy, Šandor, Borba Anžuvinaca za prijestolje ugarsko­hrvatsko do prve krunidbe Karla Roberta [The Angevin struggle for the throne of Hungary-Croatia until the first coronation of Charles Robert] (Zagreb: C. Albrechta, 1893) Šišić, Ferdo, Vojvoda Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i njegovo doba [Duke Hrvoje and his time] (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1902) Tkalčić, Ivan, ‘Borba naroda hrvatskoga za anzovinsku kuću proti ugarskomu kralju Arpadovcu, Andriji III’ [The fight of the Croatian people for the house of Angevin against the Hungarian King of the Arpads, Andrew III], Rad JAZU, 34 (1876), 1–34 Toynbee, Margaret, St Louis of Toulouse and the Process of Canonisation in the Fourteenth Century (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1929) Williman, Daniel, ‘The Right of Spoil of the Popes of Avignon, 1316–1415’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 78 (1988) Wood, Diana, Clement  VI: The Pontificate and Ideas of an Avignon Pope (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) Zutshi, Patrick, ‘Petitioners, Popes, Proctors: The Development of Curial Institutions, c.  1150–1250’, in Pensiero e sperimentazioni istituzionali nella ‘Societas Christiana’ (1046–1250), ed. by Giancarlo Andenna (Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 2007), pp. 265–93

Between Uppsala and Rome: Swedish Bishops’ Contacts with the Papal Curia in the Late Middle Ages Kirsi Salonen

T

his article examines the late medieval Swedish bishops’ visits to the papal Curia in Rome. The analysis concentrates on the two most significant reasons for bishops to travel to the Holy See: the episcopal appointment process and consecration as well as the ad limina visits of the bishops. The discussion is limited to the late medieval period. It begins from c.  the 1450s, when the popes had returned to Rome after the Great Schism and the period of councils, and continues until the Swedish Reformation, which officially took place in 1527 and caused the split of the Swedish Church from the Catholic Church in Rome. The article is based on medieval papal documentation.

From Far North – the Province of Uppsala The Swedish Church province of Uppsala was one of the largest ecclesiastical provinces in the whole of Christendom.1 The province was divided into the archbishop’s diocese of Uppsala and six suffragan dioceses: Linköping, Skara, Strängnäs, Turku, Västerås, and Växjö. Despite its vast territory, the number 1

The province of Uppsala covered most of the territory of present-day Sweden (excluding the most southern parts, Skåne and Blekinge, and the western coastal counties, Halland and Bohoslän, which belonged to the Danish church province of Lund) and Finland. Kirsi Salonen ([email protected]) is Professor of European and World History at the University of Turku and leader of the Turku Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Studies, Finland. Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 289–306 PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120622 BREPOLS

Kirsi Salonen

290

of inhabitants in the province of Uppsala was relatively small: the population of the Swedish mainland has been estimated between 650,000 and 750,000, while the Finnish population varied between 150,000 and 300,000.2 Thus the Swedish bishops ruled huge geographical territories with only a small number of Christians. In practice, this meant that for fulfilling their obligation to visit all parishes in their dioceses, the Swedish bishops had to spend a considerable amount of time in travelling from one remote place to another. The Swedish bishops were not only busy with the ecclesiastical administration of their dioceses, but they also belonged to the secular elite. All Swedish bishops were automatically members of the state council, and in that role they were involved in civil administration and even dragged to warfare. The state obligations impeded the Swedish elite, for example, from undertaking long and frequent journeys abroad. This means that we have relatively little information about the Swedish bishops’ travelling in the late Middle Ages. There were, however, certain kinds of situations that required visits to the Holy See, and the Swedish bishops also had to respect these obligations. The sources in the Vatican Apostolic Archives as well as in the collections of other papal archives, such as the Apostolic Penitentiary, distinguish clearly a certain number of central reasons for bishops to have contact with the papal Curia. Some of them — the episcopal appointment process and consecration as well as the obligatory regular visits to the Holy See (visita ad limina) — required frequent contacts between the Swedish bishoprics and the papal Curia. There were also some other important matters of the dioceses, which required the presence of local representatives in the papal Curia, such as the renewal of diocesan statutes. In addition to the administrative reasons, some bishops travelled to Rome also for private reasons: pilgrimage, privileges, or need of papal pardon.3 The following discussion focuses upon the first two reasons, episcopal appointments and the ad limina visits, because the surviving medieval sources do not offer much information about the latter ones.4

2

Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages, pp. 218–22. About this categorization, see Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’, pp. 435–36. 4 The Swedish Penitentiary documentation does not contain any petitions from Swedish bishops — see Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages, passim. Similarly, there is extremely little direct information about the pilgrimages of the late medieval Swedish bishops. 3

Between Uppsala and Rome

291

Episcopal Appointments The most significant personal reason for a bishop to pay a visit to the papal Curia must have been his episcopal appointment. In the second half of the fifteenth century, the Swedish Church province followed in episcopal appointments the principles agreed by the German nation in the Council of Vienna in 1448.5 According to this agreement, the cathedral chapters could freely elect a suitable candidate for a vacant episcopal see without the pope’s intervention.6 According to the appointment practice, a person who had officially been elected by a cathedral chapter became a bishop elect if he consented to the election and if he was found competent to the position. Before a bishop elect could receive his episcopal consecration, the election had to be confirmed by the pope within a certain time limit from the election. In order to receive a papal confirmation, the election documentation had to be presented to the pope, who (together with his cardinals in the consistory) made a decision about the appointment. If the election seemed to be correct and the bishop elect competent, it was a rule that the pontiff approved the election.7 When the pope had given his approval, the official appointment letters had to be composed, the payments related to the appointment procedure had to be paid to the Apostolic Chamber, and the bishop had to take an oath, in which he promised, among other things, obedience to the pontiff. After that the newly appointed bishop could receive the episcopal consecration, after which he could act with full episcopal powers in his diocese. Unlike archbishops — whose presence in the Curia was normally required at the moment of their appointment because they had to receive their archiepiscopal pallium from the pontiff — the bishop elect did not have to travel personally to the papal Curia for obtaining the papal confirmation for his election, but a representative of the chapter and/or the bishop elect could take care of the appointment process. In these cases the appointed bishop normally received his episcopal consecration by one or more of his local peers to whom the pope had entrusted the task. At that occasion the newly appointed bishop had to take the oath of obedience to the pope. If the elect, instead, was present in the papal Curia, he could take the oath of obedience there and be consecrated in the Curia. The popes very rarely performed these acts personally but entrusted 5

Meyer, ‘Das Wiener Konkordat von 1448’. The text of the concordat is edited in Raccolta di concordati, ed. by Mercati, pp. 177–81. 7 About the developments in appointment practices in the papal Curia, see Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 133–48. 6

Kirsi Salonen

292

the task to others: sometimes to cardinals but most often to bishops residing in the Curia.8 Thus, it was not obligatory for the Swedish bishops to travel to Rome for their episcopal appointments, but they could entrust the process to the hands of representatives. But what do the late medieval sources tell about the eagerness of the Swedish bishops elect to travel to the papal Curia? How often had they been personally present at the papal Curia at the moment of their episcopal confirmation? How many of them had received the episcopal consecration in Rome? And how many had, instead, used the services of a representative? We have relatively good knowledge about the presence of the late medieval Swedish bishops in Rome on these occasions, since this information can relatively easily be found in the pages of the papal cameral registers, which recorded the different payments related to the episcopal appointments.9 Let us begin with the Swedish archbishops, whose presence in the Curia was — at least in theory — required for receiving the pallium. From the mid-fifteenth century onwards until the Swedish Reformation in 1527, three men were elected to the archiepiscopal see of Uppsala: Jöns Bengtsson in 1449, Jakob Ulvsson in 1469, and Gustav Trolle in 1515.10 We know that the two last ones, Jakob Ulvsson and Gustav Trolle, had both been personally in the Curia when the pope confirmed their elections as archbishops of Uppsala. Jöns Bengtsson, instead, had done this through a representative.11 The Swedish suffragan bishops in their turn travelled to the papal Curia for the confirmation of their episcopacies more rarely. From 1449 until 1527, thirty-five men were appointed to the seven episcopal seats in Sweden.12 Table 8

Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, p. 140. About the different payments, see for example Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’, pp. 435–38; Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 145–47. 10 Carlsson, ‘Gustav Eriksson Trolle’; Gillingstam, ‘Jöns Bengtsson (Oxenstierna)’; Olsson, ‘Jakob Ulvsson’. Brilioth, Handbok i svensk kyrkohistoria, pp. 194–95, 200, 208–09. 11 Brilioth, Handbok i svensk kyrkohistoria, pp.  194–95, 200, 208–09; Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages, p. 427. 12 Kettil Karlsson (Vasa), Henrik Tidemansson, Jacobus de Serra, and Hans Brask to the see of Linköping; Bengt Gustavsson, Hans Markvardsson, Brynolf Gerlaksson, Vincent Henningson, and Johannes Franciscus de Potentia to the see of Skara; Sigge Ulvsson, Hans Magnusson, Kort Rogge, and Mats Gregersson to the see of Strängnäs; Olavus Magni, Kort Bitz, Magnus Nicolai (Särkilahti), Laurentius Suurpää, Johannes Olavi, and Arvidus Kurck to the see of Turku; Peter Månsson, Olof Gunnarsson, Bengt Knutsson, Birger Månsson, Lydeke Abelsson, Olof Andersson, Otto Olafsson, and Peder Månsson to the see of Västerås; and Gudmund Nilsson, Nils Olsson, and Ingemar Petersson to the see of Växjö. Additionally, there 9

Between Uppsala and Rome

293

13.1 lists the Swedish dioceses and shows how many (arch)bishops elect were personally present in the Curia and how many of them acted through either a local or a foreign representative. The table uses the following categorization: (1) number of Swedish bishops who travelled to the Curia for their appointment, (2) number of curialists appointed to the Swedish episcopal sees, who were naturally present in the Curia, (3) number of Swedish bishops who acted through a local representative, (4) number of Swedish bishops who used the services of a foreign representative, (5) number of Swedish bishops who remained elect and never received a papal approval, and (6) number of Swedish bishops from whose appointment process we do not have any information. Table 13.1. The presence of the Swedish bishops at the papal Curia during their appointment. Personally in Curia

Curialists

Local repr.

Foreign repr.

Electus

?

Uppsala (3)

2

0

1

0

0

0

Linköping (5)

0

1

3

0

1

0

Skara (5)

1

1

2

0

0

1

Strängnäs (4)

0

0

1

3

0

0

Turku/Åbo (6)

2

0

3

1

0

0

Västerås (9)

2

0

3

3

1

0

Växjö (3)

0

0

2

0

0

1

Total (35)

7

2

15

7

2

2

20%

6%

42%

20%

6%

6%

Diocese

%

Source: Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages, pp. 427–28

As the numbers in this table show, only nine out of the thirty-five late medieval Swedish bishops elect had been present in the Curia when their episcopal election was confirmed. This means that only one out of three Swedish bishops had been personally present in the papal Curia for this important occasion. If we look at the situation even more closely, we notice that only seven Swedish bishops were in Rome for their consecration. Six of them travelled to the papal Curia for the occasion, while one of them, Peder Månsson, the administrator of the Birgittan were two bishops elect who never received papal confirmation: Hemming Gadh for the diocese of Linköping and Peder Jakobsson for the diocese of Västerås. See Eubel, ii, 77, 95, 178, 232, 242, 260, 266, and Eubel, iii, 91, 118, 225, 294, 304, 323, 332.

Kirsi Salonen

294

house in Rome, did not have to travel there because he was residing in the Eternal City when he was appointed to the see of Västerås in 1523, and he received his consecration the following year.13 In two cases, instead, there is a question of nonSwedish curialists who had received an appointment to a Swedish episcopal seat: Jacobus de Serra in 1501 to the see of Linköping and Johannes Franciscus de Potentia in 1523 to the see of Skara.14 These men were residing permanently in Rome and thus did not have to make a long journey to the pope — actually they never travelled to their dioceses but stayed in Rome instead. The presence in the Curia during the approval process and consecration was obvious for the men living in Rome, but six Swedish bishops elect made the decision to travel to Rome for the event. Two of them were the already mentioned Archbishops of Uppsala, Jakob Ulvsson and Gustav Trolle, who went to Rome to receive their pallium.15 In addition to them, Bishop Olavus Magni of Turku in February 1450,16 Bishop Kort Bitz of Turku in July 1460,17 Birger Månsson of Västerås in March 1463,18 and Bishop Hans Markvardsson of Skara in June 146519 visited Rome and received their appointment and consecration by the Holy See. There is not much information about the visits of the above-mentioned bishops in Rome, because the typical documentation preserved is the appointment letter as well as information about the payments related to the episcopal appointments in the cameral register series. In some cases it is, however, possible to say something more about the presence of the bishop elect in the papal Curia. There is, for example, enough information about the appointment and consecration of Bishop Olavus Magni of Turku,20 who travelled to Rome in January 1450. If we consider his motives to leave for the Holy See, it becomes evident that he had more reasons to be personally present at the papal Curia than only his episcopal confirmation and consecration, which took place on 4 February and 13

Piltz, ‘Peder Månsson’. Eubel, ii, 178 ( Jacobus de Serra); Eubel, iii, 294 ( Johannes Franciscus de Potentia). 15 Brilioth, Handbok i svensk kyrkohistoria, pp. 200, 209. 16 v. Törne, ‘De finska medeltidsbiskoparnas besök’, pp. 204–05; FMU, iii, 2825–29. 17 v. Törne, ‘De finska medeltidsbiskoparnas besök’, pp. 204–05; FMU, iv, 3122–23. Kort Bitz, however, did not receive his consecration in Rome but in Siena, where Pope Pius II was spending the hot summer months. 18 Inger, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, pp. 297–98; AC, ii, 1333, 1335. 19 AC, ii, 1361. 20 About Olavus Magni, see Palola, Maunu Tavast ja Olavi Maununpoika, pp. 111–16, 123–39, 147–51, 157–64. 14

Between Uppsala and Rome

295

8 February. I have already earlier argued that the main reason for his presence in Rome — in addition to the fact that the year 1450 was a jubilee and thus attracted many pilgrims — was the fact that his election to the see of Turku was not a typical one. In fact, his predecessor, Magnus Tavast, who at that moment was already at an advanced age, decided to resign his position in favour of Olavus. Resignation of one’s ecclesiastical position because of old age was an unusual act in the Middle Ages, and according to the regulations of canon law, it had to be done at ‘the hands of the pontiff ’ (in manibus papae).21 Since the regulations of the papal Curia allowed the pope to reserve to himself the right to appoint candidates to positions which had become vacant by the Holy See, it was important for the Finnish ecclesiastical authorities to have their own candidate present in Rome when the pope received the resignation. In this way they could ensure that the pope would not appoint to the position anyone else than the local favourite. The chapter of Turku must have thought that it was wisest if the local favourite, Olavus Magni, were personally present in the Curia. In fact, the appointment process went as the Turku chapter had hoped for, and Olavus Magni was appointed as the new Bishop of Turku. The Vatican sources contain information about the papal appointment through different register entries regarding the payments related to the appointment (communi servitia and minuta servitia) that had been paid to the Apostolic Chamber.22 After all these practicalities had been done, it was time for the neo-elect Olavus to receive his episcopal consecration. Very often, no written evidence is left about these celebrations in Rome. Also in this case we have no evidence about the festivities themselves, but luckily a small note from the eighteenth century which lists the costs of the consecration of Olavus Magni in Rome in 1450 has survived to our days. According to this note, Olavus had to pay four ducats for the consecrators (whose names are unfortunately not given in the note) as well as two ducats for the clerics who had participated in the ceremony. This was not the only consecration cost for the neo-bishop, but the note also tells that Olavus bought new clothes for the occasion for twenty-seven ducats and that the celebration lunch afterwards cost him ten ducats. New clothes and a meal indicate that Olavus had celebrated his consecration properly with a larger group of friends, and the sums mentioned also indicate that he did not try to save money. Of course the mentioned costs were only a small part of the overall sum Olavus had to pay for his appointment, since, if the official appointment payments to the Holy See are also included, the whole 21 22

Salonen, ‘What Happened to Aged Priests in the Late Middle Ages?’, pp. 185–87, 189–91. FMU, iii, 2825. Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’, pp. 436–37.

296

Kirsi Salonen

sum Olavus had to pay for his episcopal appointment amounts to 354 ducats and 9 carlins.23 On top of this came the travel costs, accommodation, food, and other expenses. It was not cheap to become a bishop, and therefore it is understandable that not all Swedish bishops elect wanted to travel to Rome. Twenty-two Swedish bishops elect had, in fact, not personally travelled to Rome but had used a representative, who travelled to the papal Curia and took care of the confirmation process. Fifteen of them entrusted the confirmation process of their promotion to the hands of a local representative. One of them was Archbishop Jöns Bengtsson of Uppsala. He was elected to his position while the Council of Basel was ongoing, and the Swedish Church sent a representative both to Basel and to Rome, where Pope Nicholas V resided, to gain approval for the election. The pope confirmed the appointment on 28 February 1448, and the respective payments were made by Birger Månsson, a Swede who was resident in Rome at that time.24 The other Swedish bishops who had sent a representative to the pope to take care of their appointment processes and the related payments were Sigge Ulvsson of Strängnäs in 1449,25 Bengt Gustavsson of Skara in 1449,26 Peder Månsson of Västerås in 1453,27 Olof Gunnarsson of Västerås in 1454,28 Kettil Karlsson of Linköping in 1459,29 Lydeke Abelsson of Västerås in 1465,30 Henrik

23 ‘Anno 1470 (= 1450) tempore jubilæi per dominum Olauum Magni, electum Aboensem exposita: primo procuratori xx ducat., cubiculariis xii ducat., nuntianti confirmationem viii, famulis commissarii ii, notario xiv, cardinali xxx, pro vestibus xxvii, pro literis extrahendis x, pro annata cc, pro sollicitatore et aliis minutis serviciis xi duc. et ix carolinos, et famulis domini papæ iv duc., consecratoribus iv duc., clerico ceremoniarum ii duc., pro prandio in die consecrationis x duc.’, edited in FMU, iii, 2860. 24 Brilioth, Handbok i svensk kyrkohistoria, pp. 194–95; AC, ii, 1207. 25 AC, ii, 1212. Canon Birgerus Hammar from Strängnäs acted as the representative of Bishop Sigge in the papal Curia in July 1449. 26 AC, ii, 1224. The administrator of the Birgittan house in Rome, Henricus, paid the fees on behalf of Bishop Bengt to the apostolic chamber in November 1450. 27 AC, ii, 1238–41. Canon Halvards Petri from Västerås acted as the representative of Bishop Peder in the papal Curia in September 1453. 28 AC, ii, 1246–49. Canons Lydechinus Abel and Henricus Laurentii from Västerås acted as the representatives of Bishop Olof in the papal Curia in January 1455. Canon Lydeke was later himself appointed to the see of Västerås. 29 AC, ii, 1292–94. Canon Johannes Huderman from Linköping acted as the representative of Bishop Kettil in the papal Curia in October 1459. 30 AC, ii, 1371–72. Petrus Johannis, parish priest of Björskog from the diocese of Västerås acted as the representative of Bishop Lydeke in the papal Curia in July 1466.

Between Uppsala and Rome

297

Tidemansson of Linköping in 1466,31 Gudmund Nilsson of Växjö in 1468,32 Nils Olsson of Växjö in 1475,33 Brynolf Gerlaksson of Skara in 1478,34 Magnus Nicolai of Turku in 1489,35 Johannes Olavi of Turku in 1507,36 Arvidus Kurki of Turku in 1511,37 and Hans Brask of Linköping in 1513.38 Seven Swedish bishops used the services of foreign clerics in getting their appointment confirmed and/or the payments sent to the papal Curia. They were Bengt Knutsson of Västerås in 1462,39 Hans Magnusson of Strängnäs in 1464,40 Kort Rogge of Strängnäs in 1479,41 Olof Andersson of Västerås in 1487,42 Lauri

31

AC, ii, 1375, 1378–79. Canon Simon Gudmundi from Linköping acted as the representative of Bishop Henrik in the papal Curia in July 1466. 32 AC, ii, 1384–87. Canon Jakob Ulfsson from Uppsala acted as the representative of Bishop Gudmund in the papal Curia in December 1468. A year later Jakob was appointed to the see of Uppsala. 33 AC, ii, 1431. Priest Gudmundus Ragvaldi from the diocese of Växjö acted as the representative of Bishop Nils in the papal Curia in August 1475. 34 AC, ii, 1438. Canon Olaus Svenonis from Skara acted as the representative of Bishop Brynolf in the papal Curia in August 1478. 35 AC, ii, 1518–19; FMU, v, 4247–53. Canon Mathias Nicolai from Turku acted as the representative of Bishop Magnus in the papal Curia in July 1489. 36

FMU, vi, 5254–55. Canon Nicolaus Johannis from Turku acted as the representative of Bishop Johannes in the papal Curia in July 1507, but the payments were sent through a cleric from Lübeck, Georgius Vinnestad. Pirinen, Turun tuomiokapituli keskiajan lopulla, pp. 300–301. 37

FMU, vii, 5523. Canon Conradus Philippi from Turku acted as the representative of Bishop Arvidus in the papal Curia in March 1511, but the payments were sent through the banker-house of Fugger in May of the same year. Pirinen, Turun tuomiokapituli keskiajan lopulla, pp. 301–02. 38 The appointment process of Bishop Hans is described in Schück, Ecclesia lincopensis, pp. 132–34. The Swedish representative who took care of the matter in the papal Curia in spring 1513 was canon Jöns Månsson of Linköping. 39 AC, ii, 1317–18. The payments to the Curia on behalf of Bishop Bengt went via the banker-house of Medici in January 1462. 40 AC, ii, 1351–54. The payments to the Curia on behalf of Bishop Hans went via the banker Leonardus de Spinellis in March 1464. 41 AC, ii, 1451–52. Curialist Stefanus de Cazziis, litterarum apostolicarum abbreviator, acted as the representative of Bishop Kort in the papal Curia in November 1479. 42 AC, ii, 1503–04. The payments to the Curia went via the banker Stephanus de Ghinutiis from Siena in December 1487.

Kirsi Salonen

298

Suurpää of Turku in 1500,43 Mats Gregersson of Strängnäs in 1501,44 and Otto Olafsson of Västerås in 1501.45 In addition to these, we have two cases in which we have no information at all about who had taken care of the confirmation process due to lack of precise information in the papal archives. These two Swedish bishops were Ingemar Petersson of Växjö who was appointed in 149446 and Vincent Henningsson of Skara who was appointed in 1505.47 Two of the Swedish bishops elect remained elect and did not receive a papal confirmation at all. One of them was Elect Hemming Gadh of Linköping in 1501, and the other Elect Peder Jakobsson of Västerås. The first remained at the see of Linköping in the status of elect for thirteen years despite the official appointment of Jacobus de Serra, who never visited his bishopric. In the second case, however, the Elect Peder Jakobsson gave way to another person, Peder Månsson, whom the pope appointed to the see of Västerås in April 1523.48 All in all the analysis of the documentation related to the episcopal appointments demonstrated very clearly that very few Swedish bishops elect travelled personally to Rome to take care of their appointment processes, but instead they normally entrusted the task to a representative. The Swedish bishops 43

FMU, vi, 4878. The payments to the Curia went via the Florentine banker Jacobus de Doffis, but it is unknown who acted as the representative of Bishop Laurentius in August 1500. v. Törne and Pirinen have suggested as representative Swedish Hans Brask, who resided in Rome at that time. v. Törne, ‘De finska medeltidsbiskoparnas besök’, pp. 215–16; Pirinen, Turun tuomiokapituli keskiajan lopulla, pp. 299–300. 44 RA, Bååthska samlingen, Obligationes 1297–1524, 4 September 1501. Proctor Leander de Perusia acted as the representative of Bishop Mats and took care of the payments to the papal Curia in September 1501. 45 RA, Bååthska samlingen, Obligationes 1297–1524, 4 September 1501. Proctor Leander de Perusia acted as the representative of Bishop Otto and took care of the payments to the papal Curia in September 1501. 46 RA, Bååthska samlingen, Obligationes 1297–1524, 28 March 1494. In the document, there is an empty space at the place where the name of the representative should be. Thus it is impossible to know who had taken care of the appointment of Bishop Ingemar. 47 RA, K. H. Karlssons avskrifter 7, Introitus et Exitus, 17 August 1505. The document states that the payments for Bishop Vincent’s appointment were paid by Rigi Aucharii et fratrum; RA, Suppliker 1492–1510, 8 August 1505. Another document from the papal copy books reveals that two canons from Skara, Johan Johansson and Åke Jakobsson, received in August 1505 papal provisions, and it is possible that one or both of them had been to the papal Curia for taking care of the appointment process of Bishop Vincent. 48 About Hemming Gadh, see Carlsson, Hemming Gadh; about Peder Jakobsson’s short career as Elect of Västerås, see Stensson, Peder Jakobsson Sunnanväder, pp. 21, 248–55.

Between Uppsala and Rome

299

preferred to use local representatives because it must have been easier to trust these important matters to the hands of a person who was known as reliable. If this for some reason was not possible, the Swedish bishops elect used foreign representatives at least to take care of the payments, as the notes in the papal cameral registers reveal. It is, however, possible that a local representative — such as the head of the Swedish Birgitta house in Rome — could have in these cases supervised the appointment process in the Curia without his name appearing in any of the papal sources.

Visita ad limina One of the promises the newly appointed bishops had to make to the pontiff in their episcopal oath was about visiting the papal Curia at regular intervals to inform the head of the Church of the matters in their dioceses. These visits are called visita ad limina sanctorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli — or just visita ad limina. The name of these visits derives originally from bishops’ practice to visit the tombs of Saints Peter and Paul in Rome on their saints’ day, 29 June. Until the end of the twelfth century, the bishops just visited the tombs, but later on, the visits began also to include reporting to the pope on the affairs of their dioceses.49 How often a bishop had to make these visits depended on how far away from the papal Curia his diocese was located. Bishops from the territories with good connections to the Holy See, the Apennine peninsula for example, were obliged to visit the papal Curia once per year. Those bishops who resided on the other side of the Alps, in Latin the so-called ultramontani, had to pay a visit to the pope every second year, while the ultramarini, that is those who lived even further away or overseas, had to visit the papal Curia every third or even every fifth year. The Swedish bishops, due to the long distance from the papal Curia, belonged to the last group of ultramarini and typically had to promise to visit the papal see every third year.50 In the late Middle Ages, the bishops did not have to pay these visits personally, but they could send their representative to Rome, who informed the papal Curia about the situation in their dioceses and paid to the Apostolic Chamber the obligatory payments related to these visits. Let us now see what is known about the ad limina visits of the Swedish bishops. This matter has been investigated by 49 Paravicini-Bagliani, ‘Ad limina’, p.  14; Inger, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, pp. 285–87. 50 Inger, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, pp. 286–88.

Kirsi Salonen

300

three scholars: Per Olof v. Törne regarding the Finnish bishops as well as Yngve Brilioth and Göran Inger concerning the whole Swedish ecclesiastical province.51 All scholars conclude that there are very few traces of the Swedish bishops’ ad limina visits from the times prior to the period of the Avignon papacy, while from the Avignon period onwards the documentation is a little bit more numerous. According to the Vatican sources, the Swedish bishops did not seem to have been very keen on respecting this part of their episcopal oaths. The archbishops of Uppsala had been slightly more active in this respect than the Swedish suffragan bishops. According to Inger, the visitation frequency had been more or less the three years typical for the ultramarini. The same trend continued also during the Great Schism as well as during the period of councils until the mid-fifteenth century.52 But what happened from the 1450s onwards? The answer to this question does not differ much from what happened before that. The papal documentation does not include traces about more frequent visits to the papal Curia by the Swedish bishops. As in the earlier periods, the archbishops of Uppsala had been the most faithful visitors in the later Middle Ages. The earliest information about the Swedish bishops’ visits to the Holy See after 1450 are from 1463, when Bishop Birger Månsson of Västerås personally visited the Holy See and received his episcopal consecration. During this occasion in March 1463 he fulfilled the visiting obligation on behalf of Archbishop Jöns Bengtsson of Uppsala for two three-year periods.53 At the same time, March 1463, the canon of Linköping, Ericus Wastonis, acted as the representative of the Linköping Bishop Kettil Karlsson and visited the papal Curia for one three-year period.54 Since the two representatives were in the Curia at the same time, we can assume that the two men must have travelled together because it was typical for the Swedes to travel to Rome in groups. It took ten years before a Swedish bishop visited the papal Curia for the ad limina visits for the next time, since from the year 1473 we have evidence about the fact that someone visited the papal Curia in June on behalf of Bishop Kort 51

v. Törne, ‘De finska medeltidsbiskoparnas besök’, passim; Brilioth, ‘De svenska medeltidsbiskoparnas visitationes’, passim. Göran Inger has summarized these studies in Inger, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, pp. 285–305. About the Finnish ad limina visits, see also Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’, pp. 436–43. 52 Inger, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, pp. 287–97. 53 AC, ii, 1340. Inger assumes that Bishop Birger could have paid the obligatory visit also on his own behalf, but there are no documentary testimonies about this. Inger, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, pp. 297–98. 54 AC, ii, 1341.

Between Uppsala and Rome

301

Bitz of Turku.55 After that, it took as long as until the 1480s before the next Swedish bishops’ representative appeared in Curia. Canon Ragvaldus Ingemundi from Uppsala paid in October 1480 the ad limina visits on behalf of Archbishop Jakob Ulvsson for four three-year periods and on behalf of Bishop Kort Rogge of Strängnäs for two three-year periods.56 Over four years later, in January 1485, Canon Jacobus Ghislonis from Uppsala paid one three-year period visit on behalf of his archbishop.57 The last mention of such visits in the papal sources is from 1494, when Canon Henrik Wenne from Turku paid the ad limina visit for two three-year periods on behalf of Bishop Magnus of Turku.58 We know nothing about such visits in the sixteenth century.59 All in all, there is evidence about seven ad limina visits the various Swedish bishops completed at the papal Curia in the second half of the fifteenth century and in the first decades of the sixteenth century. For a church province with seven dioceses, seven recorded visits from the 1450s until the 1520s is certainly too few. The archbishops of Uppsala had been most faithful to the popes, since two of the three Swedish archbishops had fulfilled this obligation, Jakob Ulvsson even twice. One out of five bishops of Linköping paid his visit, as had one out of four bishops of Strängnäs and two out of six bishops of Turku, while there is no trace of the ad limina visits of the five bishops of Skara, the nine bishops of Västerås, and the three bishops of Växjö. Additionally, as the above examples showed, the Swedish bishops never fulfilled their ad limina visits in person but always used a representative. Thus we can only conclude that the Swedish bishops had not been very eager to take care of this obligation and they had not considered it important to personally travel to Rome for this purpose. Furthermore, the Swedish bishops typically used the possibility to pay the visits for more one three-year period at a time. It is curious how little information is available about these visits, even though they in principle were obligatory. This curiosity has led to the question whether the Vatican sources simply could be lacunose in this respect and the bishops had actually taken care of their obligations much more frequently than what the existing sources reveal. It is not possible to gain an answer to this question from the Vatican source material, but another reason to doubt the completeness 55

FMU, iv, 3547, 3549. Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’, p. 439. AC, ii, 1456–57. Inger, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, p. 299. 57 AC, ii, 1482. Brilioth, ‘De svenska medeltidsbiskoparnas visitationes’, pp. 214–15; Inger, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, p. 299. 58 FMU, v, 4536. Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’, p. 440. 59 Inger, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, pp. 299–300. 56

Kirsi Salonen

302

of the recording of the visits is that other late medieval Vatican sources contain frequent references to the practice that the papal Curia was actually checking that the bishops regularly paid these visits to the Curia. And, as the following example case from the diocese of Turku shows, the bishops who did not fulfil their obligations faced sanctions at the papal Curia. The documentation related to the visit of the representative of Bishop Kort Bitz of Turku in 1473 offers interesting information upon the question of what happened to bishops who ignored their obligation to regularly visit the papal Curia. Bishop Kort received his episcopal confirmation from the Piccolomini Pope Pius II in 1460 in Siena, and on this occasion he made an oath that he would visit the Holy See every third year. It took, however, almost thirteen years before he sent — for the first time — his representative to Rome and Pope Sixtus IV in 1473. When the bishop’s representative, whose identity remains unknown, approached the pontiff, he was informed that the pope considered Bishop Kort guilty of perjury because he had ignored his promise to pay ad limina visits every third year. This was not the only accusation against the Bishop of Turku, who was also guilty of bloodshed and overstepping his powers, and the pontiff considered Bishop Kort excommunicated and irregular. In order to continue in his episcopal office, the bishop needed to apply for a papal absolution and dispensation. And so the representative of Bishop Kort presented a petition to the pope on 4 June 1473 applying for absolution and dispensation because of what the bishop had done wrong as well as for a license that would allow him to visit the Holy See only with ten-year intervals. Pope Sixtus conceded to the bishop’s absolution and dispensation but refused to diminish the visitation frequency. 60 The representative of the bishop was not content with the pontiff ’s answer and tried again eleven days later. This time the petition was formulated more moderately asking only for absolution and dispensation without a mention about the visits. The pope appreciated more the new and more modest request, since he granted — in addition to the requested absolution and dispensation — a license allowing Bishop Kort to visit the papal Curia only every fifth year, adding that he was even excused from the visit of the first five-year period.61 Thus the following ad limina visit of Bishop Kort should have taken place in 1483. The Vatican sources, however, do not contain any traces of that even though the bishop remained in his office until 1489.62 60 61 62

FMU, iv, 3547. FMU, iv, 3549. Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’, pp. 439–40.

Between Uppsala and Rome

303

As was presented above, the records from the papal archives do not reveal much about the ad limina visits of the late medieval Swedish bishops. This and the fact that they never fulfilled these visits in person means that the Swedish bishops had not taken very seriously their promises about frequently visiting the Curia. Indeed, they seem to have taken care of the obligation only occasionally. However, it is important to keep in mind that the possible lack of sources may have made the situation look worse than it was in reality.

Conclusions As the examples have shown, the Swedish bishops were not very eager to have frequent personal contacts with the Holy See in the late Middle Ages. Some of them travelled to Rome to take care of their appointment procedure and to receive their episcopal consecration. The archbishops of Uppsala were more active in this respect, since they typically could not receive their pallium from anyone else than the pope. The Swedish suffragan bishops in their turn much more rarely travelled to Rome for receiving their consecration. In fact, it seems that the elects only did so in special circumstances when they wanted to make sure that their appointment processes would take place as planned. If the Swedish bishops did not bother to visit the papal Curia for their appointments, they did not care much more for the obligatory ad limina visits either. As was shown, the Swedish bishops (especially the archbishops) did occasionally pay these visits to the papal Curia, but this typically took place through a representative and not personally. The existing documentation regarding these visits in the papal archival material offer us information on only a very few such visits. According to the sources, the Swedish bishops were expected to visit the papal Curia with the interval of three years, but in reality the bishops did not observe this rule, and the representatives who came to Rome on the bishops’ behalf often paid the visits for more three-year periods at the same time. And as the case of Bishop Kort Bitz of Turku demonstrated, some Swedish bishops ignored this obligation and encountered severe ecclesiastical punishments. All in all, the medieval papal documentation demonstrates that the Swedish bishops had surprisingly few connections to the papal Curia in the late Middle Ages. The reasons for the Swedish bishops’ disinterest in travelling to Rome are probably many, and there are no direct sources telling us about them. But we must assume that the constant wars between the Danish Union kings and the Swedish rulers from the second half of the fifteenth century onwards must have caused a lot of turbulence in Sweden, which must have prevented the bishops from

Kirsi Salonen

304

leaving their dioceses for longer periods. It was not only because of the dangers of travel caused by the wars, but the role of the Swedish bishops as members of the state council meant that the bishops were often deeply involved in the country’s political activities. On top of that, we should remember that the Swedish bishoprics were very large, and the bishops used a lot of time in travelling around their dioceses for various episcopal duties. If a bishop wanted to leave for Rome, there was a question about a journey which took many months, and some bishops did not want to or could not be absent from their dioceses for so long a time. The need to be personally present in their dioceses must also have resulted in the fact that the Swedish bishops mainly used representatives when they had some business to do in the papal Curia. In many cases, it must have been easier to use the services of persons who were familiar with the curial practices and had contacts there, rather than trying to do things personally. The papal sources demonstrated clearly that the Swedes preferred to use local representatives instead of foreign ones if this was possible. Some medieval Swedish bishops might have preferred to use representatives because they did not have personal experience of dealing with the papal administration. But this was not the case with all Swedish bishops. Some of them had indeed long experience from the papal Curia. The example par excellence of such a Swedish bishop is Elect Hemming Gadh of Linköping, who lived in Rome for an entire decade, during which he established excellent contacts and networks within the Curia and with people working there.63 Similarly, Archbishops Jakob Ulvsson and Gustav Trolle had also spent time in Rome taking care of different matters at the Curia on their own and on other Swedes’ behalf, which experience must have taught them the ways to proceed in the curial labyrinth. Also some suffragan bishops, like Hans Brask of Linköping, Peder Månsson of Västerås, and Magnus Särkilahti of Turku, shared the same experience. These men would not have had any difficulties with personally taking care of their issues in the Curia because others had been using them as their representatives in different matters. In fact, acting as bishops’ representative in the Curia often functioned as a step towards episcopacy, since so many of the Swedish episcopal representatives were later appointed bishops.

63

Carlsson, Hemming Gadh, passim.

Between Uppsala and Rome

305

Works Cited Archival Sources Stockholm, Riksarkivet [RA] Bååthska samlingen, Obligationes 1297–1524 K. H. Karlssons avskrifter, 7, Introitus et Exitus Suppliker 1492–1510

Primary Sources AC, ii: Diplomatarium Svecanum, Appendix. Acta Pontificum Svecica I, Acta Cameralia, vol. ii, ed. by Ludwig Magnus Bååth (Stockholm: Norstedt, 1957) Eubel: Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, sive Summorum pontificium, ed. by Konrad Eubel, vols ii–iii, 2nd edn (Munster: Libreria regensbergiana, 1914–23) FMU: Finlands medeltidsurkunder, vols  iii–vii, ed.  by Reinhold Hausen (Helsingfors: Statsrådets tryckerie, 1921–33) Raccolta di concordati su materie ecclesiastiche tra la Santa Sede e le autorità civili, vol. i, ed. by Angelo Mercati (Rome: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1919)

Secondary Sources Brilioth, Yngve, Handbok i svensk kyrkohistoria, vol. i: Medeltiden (Stockholm: Svenska kyrkans diakonistyrelse, 1948) —— , ‘De svenska medeltidsbiskoparnas visitationes liminum ss. Apostolorum’, Kyrkohis­ torisk Årsskrift, 14 (1913), 205–19 Carlsson, Gottfrid, ‘Gustav Eriksson Trolle’, in Nordisk familjebok, vol. xxix (Stockholm: Nordisk familjeboks förlag, 1919), pp. 823–26 —— , Hemming Gadh: En statsman och prelat från sturetiden: Biografisk studie (Uppsala: Askerberg, 1915) Gillingstam, Hans, ‘Jöns Bengtsson (Oxenstierna)’, in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, vol. xxviii (Stockholm: Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, 1992), p. 496 Harvey, Katherine, Episcopal Appointments in England, c.  1214–1344: From Episcopal Election to Papal Provision (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014) Inger, Göran, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, Bibliotheca Theologiae Practicae, 11 (Lund: Gleerup, 1961) Meyer, Andreas, ‘Das Wiener Konkordat von 1448 – eine erfolgreiche Reform des Spätmittelalters’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 66 (1986), 108–52 Olsson, Gunnar, ‘Jakob Ulvsson’, in Svenskt biografiskt lexicon, vol. xx (Stockholm: Norstedts, 1975), p. 97

306

Kirsi Salonen

Palola, Ari-Pekka, Maunu Tavast ja Olavi Maununpoika – Turun piispat 1412–1460, Suomen Kirkkohistoriallisen Seuran Toimituksia, 178 (Helsinki: Suomen Kirkkohistoriallinen Seura, 1997) Paravicini-Bagliani, Agostino, ‘Ad limina’, in Dizionario enciclopedico del medioevo, vol. i (Rome: Città Nuova, 1998), p. 14 Piltz, Anders, ‘Peder Månsson’, in Svenskt biografiskt lexicon, vol.  xxviii (Stockholm: Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, 1992), p. 786 Pirinen, Kauko, Turun tuomiokapituli keskiajan lopulla, Suomen Kirkkohistoriallisen Seuran Toimituksia, 58 (Helsinki: Suomen Kirkkohistoriallinen Seura, 1956) Salonen, Kirsi, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi: I  finlandesi nella Curia nel tardo medioevo’, in Kurie und Region: Festschrift für Brigide Schwarz zum 65. Geburtstag, ed.  by Brigitte Flug, Michael Matheus, and Andreas Rehberg, Geschichtliche Landesgunde, 59 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2005), pp. 435–50 —— , The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages: The Example of the Province of Uppsala, 1448–1527, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Humaniora, 313 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 2001) —— ,  ‘What Happened to Aged Priests in the Late Middle Ages?’, in On Old Age: Approaching Death in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, ed.  by Christian Krötzl and Katariina Mustakallio, The History of Daily Life, 2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), pp. 183–95 Schück, Herman, Ecclesia lincopensis: Studier om linköpingskyrkan under medeltiden och Gustav Vasa, Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in History, 4 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1959) Stensson, Rune, Peder Jakobsson Sunnanväder och maktkampen i Sverige 1504–1527 (Uppsala: Almquvist & Wiksell, 1947) v. Törne, Per Olof, ‘De finska medeltidsbiskoparnas besök vid den påfliga kurian’, in Historiska uppsatser tillegnade M. G. Schybergson, Skrifter utg. af Svenska litteratursällskap i Finland, 100 (Helsingfors: Svenska litteratursällskap i Finland, 1911), pp. 198–296

Index

Asti, bishops Baldracco Malabaila: 73, 74, 75 Arnaud de Rosette: 252 Benevento, Battle: 181, 186 Bertrand du Poujet Legation: 249, 250, 252, 256 bishops royal service: 2, 9, 10, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27–32, 46, 60, 87, 92 courtier bishops (see royal service) Braga, archbishops: 40, 43, 50 Martinho Geraldes: 44, 45 Pedro Juliães: 45, 45 n. 26 Friar Telo, Franciscan: 58 Burgos: 223–24 Power struggle between the city and governors: 229–30 Burgos, bishops Luis de Acuña: 223, 225, 225 nn. 7 and 8, 226, 226 nn. 10, 12, 227 nn. 16 and 19, 228, 229, 230, 231, 231 nn. 31 and 32, 232 n. 35, 233, 233 nn. 37, 39 and 40, 234, 234 nn. 42 and 43, 236 n. 52 family origins: 225 kinship network: 225–26, 234–35 patronage network: 227–28, 235 punishments for false conversions: 236 reforms: 231–32, 235 Uniformity of the Mass: 236 library: 237

canons: 22, 46, 55, 74, 87 n. 8, 88, 159, 161, 165–66, 168, 169, 181, 207, 296 n. 29, 297 n. 32 Canterbury, archbishops Hubert Walter: 15, 16, 26, 32 Ralph Neville: 16, 19, 22, 25 Stephen Langton: 16 Theobald: 24 Thomas Becket: 22, 24, 27, 29, 32 Canterbury, archdeacons Simon Langton: 16 cardinals Bernardino López de Carvajal: 125, 126, 127, 133, 134, 138, 147 Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros: 130, 135 n. 104 Gerard Bianchi: 265, 265 n. 9 Gil Torres: 202, 234 n.41 Luca Fieschi: 249 Nicolaus Brekespeare: 162 Ottaviano Ubaldini: 179, 183, 185, 186, 194 Pedro González de Mendoza: 125, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134, 137, 145, 147 William of Sabina: 158 Castile, kingdom Afonso X: 41, 42, 49, 57 Alfonso VI: 122, 201 Alfonso X: 123 Alfonso VII: 121, 207 Alfonso XI: 201 n. 3, 207, 208, 213 Cardinal Mendoza: see Cardinals

308

Bernandino López de Carvajal: see Cardinals Enrique II: 225 Enrique III: 225 Enrique IV: 224, 225, 225 n. 7, 229, 229 n. 25, 230 Fernando III: 209 Fernando IV: 206, 207, 208, 210, 215 Pedro I: 208, 225 Sancho IV: 206 Castile, queens Beatriz: 40 n. 9, 41, 46 Dowager queen María de Molina: 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 216 Isabel: 226 n. 13, 230 Chichester, bishops Robert Passelewe: 28 Coimbra, bishops D. Egas Fafes de Lanhoso: 44, 46 Mateus Martins: (see Viseu, bishops) Aymeric d’Ébrard, first prelate of French origin: 58 Coimbra, chapter João Martins de Soalhães: 59 Coimbra, Santa Cruz monastery: 43, 46 Colle Valdelsa, Battle: 181, 188 Council of Lyon: 39 Cracow, bishops Bodzęta of Września: 112, 113 Iwo Odrowąż: 110 n. 11 Jan Muscata: 9, 116 Gedko: 109 Croatia–Dalmatia: 263, 264, 266, 278 Dominican friars: 24, 37, 53, 60, 169, 203, 204, 251, 254, 265 Durham, bishop: 18 Antony Bek: 23, 26 Nicholas Farnham: 20 Ranulf Flambard: 30 electoral disputes: 17, 29, 32, 47, 59, 94, 98, 111, 115, 185, 248 election by cathedral chapters: 8, 9, 16–17, 20, 28, 31, 47, 92–94, 95 n. 27, 96–97, 98, 107, 108, 110, 114, 116–117, 161, 166, 168, 173, 188, 205, 244, 245, 248, 265, 270 n. 40, 271, 277, 280, 291,

Index England, kings Edward I: 17, 18 Henry III: 16, 17, 18, 22 Évora, bishops: 38, 44, 55 Durando Pais: 37, 51 n. 50, 52, 53, 59, 60 Martinho Pires: 44, 48 Évora, chapter: 55, 59 Martinho Pires: 59 Faeroes (Kirkjubøur), bishops: 155, 163, 164, 172 Erlend: 163, 172 Hallgeir: 172 France, kings Louis VII: 95 n. 30 Philip Augustus: 5, 95, 95 n. 30, 100 Philip the Fair: 89, 92, 95, 95 n. 27 Franciscan friars: 37, 48, 53, 54, 58, 60, 254, 255, 268, 268 n. 26, 274, 278 Friar Nicholas Hispanus: 37, 48, 50, 51, 56 Gangalandi, counts: 183, 183 n. 10, 184, 186, 187, 188, 188 n. 20 Gerald of Wales: 15, 18 Ghibellines: 7, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252 253 Gniezno, archbishops: 110, 115, 116 Vincentius Niałek: 111 Guarda, bishops D. Rodrigo Fernandes: 44, 47–48 Friar Vasco: 48 Gubbio, bishops Pietro dei Gabrielli: 73 Guelph alliance: 186, 187, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 256 Hamar, bishops Gilbert, formerly archdeacon of Shetland: 160, 161 Hólar, bishops: 165–66, 167, 169, 171 Brandr Jónsson: 166 Jörundr Þorsteinsson: 165 Guðmundur Arason: 157 Laurentius Kálfsson: 167, 168 Audun Þorbergsson: 168 Hungary–Croatia: 264, 266, 267, 269, 276, 280

Index Árpád dynasty: 264 Conflict with Venice: 280–81 Sigismund: 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 Šubici oligarchs: 264, 266–68, 269, 270 attempt to elevate Šibenik parish to a bishopric: 266 creation of diocese: see Šibenik ideal election divine intervention: 31 Lamego, bishops: 38, 44, 44 n. 22, 58 Diego Fernández: 211, 215, 216 appointment as bishop of Zamora: 212–13 possible tomb in Old Cathedral of Salamanca: 214, 217–18 João: 59 Pedro Eanes: 44, 48 Lebus, bishops Wilhelm of Nysa: 111 Linköping, bishops Henrik Tidemansson: 297 Hans Brask: 292 n. 12, 297, 298 n. 43, 304 Kettil Karlsson: 292 n. 12, 296, 300 Lisbon, bishops: 53 D. Mateus: 44, 47, 60 Lorvão, monastery: 43 Malavolti family, Siena: 70, 71, 76 (see also bishops Siena) Matthew Paris, chronicler: 22, 29 Meaux, bishops: 10, 87 Adam de Vaudoi: 91, 93 age at appointment: 90 Aleaume de Cuisy: 91, 93 Amaury: 91, 92 n. 22, 93 Anseau or Anselme: 87 n. 8, 88 n. 11, 91, 93, 95 Durand de Saint-Pourçain: 87 n. 8, 91, 93, 98 n. 51 educational standards: 87–89 election: 95–98 Geoffroi de Tressi: 88 n. 11, 91, 93 Guillaume de Dormans: 91, 93, 99 Guillaume de Brosse: 91, 93 Jean de Boiry: 89, 91, 93, 94, 98 n. 50 Jean Le Meunier: 87 n. 8, 88, 88 n. 12, 91, 94

309

Jean de Poinci: 88 n. 11, 91, 93 Jean de Garlande: 87 n. 8, 91, 93 Jean de la Grange: 91, 93 Jean de Meulan: 87 n. 10, 90, 91, 93, 98 n. 50 Jean de Montrolles: 87 n.9, 91, 93, 95 Jean de Pierrepont: 91, 94, 98 n. 50 Jean de Sains: 91, 93, 98 n. 50, 99 Jean du Drac: 91, 94 Jean L’Huillier: 91, 94, 98 n. 50 Jean Royer: 91, 93, 98 n. 50 Louis de Melun: 91, 94, 98, 99 Nicolas Volé or de Châlons: 91, 93, 96 Pasquier de Vaux: 91, 94, 96, 97 Phillippe de Vitry: 89 n. 14, 91, 93, 98 n. 50 Pierre Fresnel: 87 n. 8, 91, 93, 98 n. 50, 99, 99 n. 56 Pierre de Jean: 90, 91, 93, 98 n. 51 Pierre de Versailles: 87 n. 8, 88 n. 12, 90, 91, 94, 98 n. 51 Pierre de Cuisy: 91, 92 n. 22, 93 Robert de Girême: 91, 93 Simon Festu: 89, 91, 93, 96 translations: 91 Tristan de Salazar: 90, 91, 94, 98 n. 50, 99 Milan, archbishops Aicardo: 254 Caassone della Torre: 247, 254 n. 42 Giovanni Visconti: 252–53 monks: 20, 27, 165, 166, 169, 275 Monroy, Nuño Pérez de: 205, 205 n. 15, 206, 206 n. 18, 207, 208, 216 Montaperti, Battle: 181, 182, 186 Montecastelli in Valdicecina, castle: 180 n. 2, 184 Montevoltraio, castle: 183, 187 nepotism: 4, 9, 65–68, 74 episcopal nepotism: 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76 Papal supremacy: 76–77 in Poland: 110–11, 112 Sigüenza: 129–132, 138 network history: 4 Nidaros, archbishops Øystein Erlendsson: 157, 158, 168, 170–71 Aslak Bolt: 164, 172

310

consecration of suffragan bishops: 163, 165 control of episcopal appointments in Iceland: 158 Eilif Arneson: 165, 168 Guttorm: 159 Jørund: 165, 167, 168 Jon the Red: 164, 171 nationality of bishops: 159, 165–66, 169 Sigurd: 158, 159 n. 14, 165, 171 Nidaros clerical milieu: 166–69 Northern Italian episcopate: 254 ecclesiastical origins: 254 educational attainment: 256 geographical origins: 252 positions at Avignon: 256 Norway: 6, 153, 154, 156, 158, 159, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171 Norway, kings: 162 Erik: 162 involvement in episcopal appointments: 164 Håkon IV Håkonsson: 158 Håkon VI Magnusson: 162 Sverre: 159 Orderic Vitalis, chronicler: 30, 31 Orkney, bishops Bjarne Kolbeinsson: 159 connections to the earls: 159 Heinrek: 161 Jofrey: 159, 160 William the Old: 159 William II: 159 William Tulloch: 161, 162 Oslo, bishops Andres: 161 Padua, bishops Ildebrandino Conti: 68–69, 248, 254 n. 44 Papal bulls Licet Ecclesiarum (1265): see Popes, Clement IV Occurrit nostrae considerationis (1289): 56 Papal provisions: 3, 8, 96, 107, 113, 114, 115–16, 174, 244, 256, 263, 298 n. 47

Index Papal reservation: 96, 97, 113, 215, 244, 245, 256, 270 Parma, bishops Ugolino Rossi: 72, 250, 254 n. 44 Passignano, monastery: 179, 183 Pisa, archbishops Simone Saltarelli: 69, 250 transfer from Parma to Pisa: 69 Płock, bishops Bernard: 116 Gedko: 109 Wit: 109 Poland, kings Kazimierz the Great: 108, 114, 115, 116 Władysław: 114 popes Alexander III: 157, 169 Alexander IV: 40 n. 9, 43, 45, 46, 181 Alexander V: 233 Alexander VI: 137, 233 n. 40 Anastasius: 154, 157 Benedict XII: 252, 253, 256, 274 n. 65 Boniface VIII: 86 n. 4, 94, 122, 179, 180 n. 1, 209, 244, 266, 267 Callixtus II: 202 Clement IV: 41, 45, 46, 50 n. 49, 184 Licet Ecclesiarum: 8, 244 Clement V: 203, 205, 209, 210, 211, 212, 215, 216, 244 Clement VI: 115, 156, 256, 274 n. 66, 275 Clement VII: 96 Eugene IV: 97, 122 n. 2 Gregory X: 50 n. 50, 51, 56, 60, 188 Honorius IV: 59 Innocent III: 109 n. 5, 154 n. 3 Innocent IV: 39, 43, 46 nn. 29 and 31, 181, 209, 234 Innocent V: 51 Innocent VIII: 132, 133, 233, 234 n. 43 John XXI: 37, 45, 45 n. 26, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 60 John XXII: 86 n. 4, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249, 251, 253, 254, 255, 256, 272, 273, 274, 278 appointment of bishops: 250–51 geographical origins: 251–52 John XXIII: 278, 279 Nicholas III: 57, 58

Index Nicholas V: 255, 296 Paul III: 65 Pius II: 294 n. 17, 302 Sixtus IV: 137, 234 n. 43, 302 Urban II: 232 n. 36 Urban IV: 40, 191 Porto, bishops: 40, 43, 44 n. 22 Vicente Mendes: 44, 45 Portugal 1258 Inquisitiones: 41, 42 n. 14, 56 1289 Agreements: 39, 46 currency devaluation: 42 royal income: 42 Portugal, kings Afonso III: 37, 38, 39, 40, 40 n. 8, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 50 n. 50, 52, 52 n. 53, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 Dinis: 37, 38, 45, 55, 56, 57, 60, Sancho II: 39, 40, 40 n. 8, 43, 48 Poznań, bishops: 108, 112 Jan Doliwa of Lutogniew: 114 Nicholas of Kórnik: 108 prosopography: 2–4, 128 Pulicciano, castle: 181, 181 n. 4, 185, 185 n. 15, 191, 193 reconciliation over its control: 185 Salamanca, Cathedral: 7, 199, 202, 211, 216, 217 Salamanca, bishopric historiography: 202–03 Salamanca, bishops Alfonso de las Asturias: 209, 211, 212, 216 Pedro Pérez de Monroy Archdeacon of Plasencia: 207 Brother, Fernán Pérez de Monroy: 205, 207 Brother, Nuño Pérez de Monroy Abbot of Santander: 205 Chancellor of Queen Maríade Molina: 216 family origins: 201, 205 promotion to Salamanca: 209–211 seal: 204 tomb in chapel of San Nicolás: 199, 200, 216–17

311

Salamanca, university: 135 n. 104, 214 secular clergy: 32, 87, 231, 254 Siena, bishops Azzolino Malavolti: 71 Donosdeo Malavolti: 71 Dominian bishop, Ruggeri: 70 Šibenik, diocese: 267, 268, 269 Sigüenza, bishops Alonso Carrillo de Acuña: 125, 130, 137 Bernardino López de Carvajal: see Cardinals Diego López de Madrid: 131 Fernando de Luján: 131, 137 Gonzalo de Santa María: 131, 137 Pedro González de Mendoza: see Cardinals Simón Girón de Cisneros: 137 Sigüenza, cathedral chapter: 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138 Silves, bishop Bartolomeu: 45, 58 Silves, diocese: 55, 58 Skálholt, bishops: 158, 165–66, 169, 171 Þorlákur Þórhallson: 157, 170 Árni Þorláksson: 166–67, 171, 172 Árni Helgason: 167 Jon Halldorsson: 169 Skara, bishops Bengt Gustavsson: 292 n. 12, 296 Hans Markvardsson: 292 n. 12, 294 Vincent Henningsson: 298 social network analysis: 4–6, 128–29, 134, 135 n. 104, 136 social origins: 86 Sodor, bishops: 156, 162, 163, 165, 173 Mark: 172 papal appointments: 162 Ragnvald: 162 Split, archbishops Andrew Benzi of Gualdo: 276, 276 n. 83, 277, 278, 278 n. 93 Balian: 270, 271 translation from archbishopric of Rhodes: 270, 271 Dominic: 272, 273, 273 n. 61 Duimus: 279, 279 n. 102, 280 Hugolin: 275–76

Index

312

John Buzad: 265, 267 John of Pisa: 274–75 Marin de Cutheis: 276 Peter: 268, 268 n. 26, 269, 278 Pelegrinus: 274, 275, 275 n. 72 Split, cathedral chapter disputed election: 272 James, archdeacon: 265, 267 Thomas, archdeacon: 264 Strängnäs, bishops Sigge Ulvsson: 292 n. 12, 296 Hans Magnusson: 292 n. 12, 297 Kort Rogge: 292 n. 12, 297, 301 Mats Gregersson: 292 n. 12, 298 Sweden, bishops bishops who failed to get papal confirmation Hemming Gadh of Linköping: 293 n. 12, 298, 298 n. 48, 304 Peder Jakobsson: 293 n. 12, 298, 298 n. 48 confirmation by pope: 291 election by cathedral chapter: 291 presence of Swedish bishops at the Curia: 293, 299–302 Toledo, archbishops: 122, 126, 137, 138, 145 Alonso Carrillo de Acuña: 130 Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros: 130, 147 Treaty of Perth (1266): 161, 173 Turku, bishops Arvidus Kurki: 297 Johannes Olavi: 292 n. 12, 297 Kort Bitz: 9, 292 nn. 12 and 17, 294, 301, 302, 303 Lauri Suurpää: 292 n. 12, 298 Olavus Magni: 292 n. 12, 294, 295 Magnus Särkilahti: 304 Magnus Tavast: 295, 301 university education: 87–89, 255–56

Canon law: 88, 167, 169, 256 Civil law: 256 Masters of arts: 88 Theology: 88, 251 university destinations Bologna: 169 Paris: 89, 169, 251 Uppsala, archbishops: 289–90, 300, 301, 303 Gustav Trolle: 292, 294, 304 Jöns Bengtsson: 292, 296, 300 Jakob Ulvsson: 292, 294, 297 n. 32, 301, 304 Västerås, bishops Bengt Knutsson: 292 n. 12, 297 Birger Månsson: 292 n. 12, 294, 296, 300 Lydeke Abelsson: 292 n. 12, 296 Olof Andersson: 292 n. 12, 297 Olof Gunnarsson: 292 n. 12, 296 Otto Olafsson: 292 n. 12, 298 Peder Månsson: 292 n. 12, 293 296, 298, 304 Växjö, bishops Gudmund Nilsson: 292 n. 12, 297 Ingemar Petersson: 292 n. 12, 298 Nils Olsson: 292 n. 12, 297 Viseu, bishops D. Mateus Martins: 44, 46, 47 Volterra, lordship: 180, 181, 186 Volterra, bishops Alberto Scolari: 179, 181, 185, 191, 193 Relatives: 181, 183, 188 Florentine bishops: 182 Włocławek, bishops: 112, 113 Gerward of Ostrowo: 112, Wrocław, bishops Tomasz I: 111 Tomasz II: 111

Medieval Church Studies All volumes in this series are evaluated by an Editorial Board, strictly on academic grounds, based on reports prepared by referees who have been commissioned by virtue of their specialism in the appropriate field. The Board ensures that the screening is done independently and without conflicts of interest. The definitive texts supplied by authors are also subject to review by the Board before being approved for publication. Further, the volumes are copyedited to conform to the publisher’s stylebook and to the best international academic standards in the field. Titles in Series Megan Cassidy-Welch, Monastic Spaces and their Meanings: Thirteenth­Century English Cistercian Monasteries (2001) Elizabeth Freeman, Narratives of a New Order: Cistercian Historical Writing in England, 1150–1220 (2002) The Study of the Bible in the Carolingian Era, ed. by Celia Chazelle and Burton Van Name Edwards (2003) Text and Controversy from Wyclif to Bale: Essays in Honour of Anne Hudson, ed. by Helen Barr and Ann M. Hutchison (2005) Lena Roos, ‘God Wants It!’: The Ideolog y of Martyrdom in the Hebrew Crusade Chronicles and its Jewish and Christian Background (2006) Emilia Jamroziak, Rievaulx Abbey and its Social Context, 1132–1300: Memory, Locality, and Networks (2004) The Voice of Silence: Women’s Literacy in a Men’s Church, ed. by Thérèse de Hemptinne and María Eugenia Góngora (2004) Perspectives for an Architecture of Solitude: Essays on Cistercians, Art and Architecture in Honour of Peter Fergusson, ed. by Terryl N. Kinder (2004) Saints, Scholars, and Politicians: Gender as a Tool in Medieval Studies, ed. by Mathilde van Dijk and Renée Nip (2005)

Manuscripts and Monastic Culture: Reform and Renewal in Twelfth­Century Germany, ed. by Alison I. Beach (2007) Weaving, Veiling, and Dressing : Textiles and their Metaphors in the Late Middle Ages, ed. by Kathryn M. Rudy and Barbara Baert (2007) James J. Boyce, Carmelite Liturgy and Spiritual Identity: The Choir Books of Kraków (2008) Studies in Carthusian Monasticism in the Late Middle Ages, ed. by Julian M. Luxford (2009) Kevin J. Alban, The Teaching and Impact of the ‘Doctrinale’ of Thomas Netter of Walden (c. 1374–1430) (2010) Gunilla Iversen, Laus angelica: Poetry in the Medieval Mass, ed. by Jane Flynn, trans. by William Flynn (2010) Kriston R. Rennie, Law and Practice in the Age of Reform: The Legatine Work of Hugh of Die (1073–1106) (2010) After Arundel: Religious Writing in Fifteenth­Century England, ed. by Vincent Gillespie and Kantik Ghosh (2011) Federico Botana, The Works of Mercy in Italian Medieval Art (c. 1050–c. 1400) (2011) The Regular Canons in the Medieval British Isles, ed. by Janet Burton and Karen Stöber (2011) Wycliffite Controversies, ed. by Mishtooni Bose and J. Patrick Hornbeck II (2011) Nickiphoros I. Tsougarakis, The Latin Religious Orders in Medieval Greece, 1204–1500 (2012) Nikolaos G. Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece: A Study of Byzantine­Western Relations and Attitudes, 1204–1282 (2012) Demetrio S. Yocum, Petrarch’s Humanist Writing and Carthusian Monasticism: The Secret Language of the Self (2013) The Pseudo­Bonaventuran Lives of Christ: Exploring the Middle English Tradition, ed. by Ian Johnson and Allan F. Westphall (2013) Alice Chapman, Sacred Authority and Temporal Power in the Writings of Bernard of Clairvaux (2013) Religious Controversy in Europe, 1378–1536: Textual Transmission and Networks of Readership, ed. by Michael Van Dussen and Pavel Soukup (2013) Ian Johnson, The Middle English Life of Christ: Academic Discourse, Translation, and Vernacular Theology (2013) Monasteries on the Borders of Medieval Europe: Conflict and Cultural Interaction, ed. by Emilia Jamroziak and Karen Stöber (2014) M. J. Toswell, The Anglo­Saxon Psalter (2014) Envisioning the Bishop: Images and the Episcopacy in the Middle Ages, ed. by Sigrid Danielson and Evan A. Gatti (2014)

Kathleen E. Kennedy, The Courtly and Commercial Art of the Wycliffite Bible (2014) David N. Bell, The Library of the Abbey of La Trappe: A Study of its History from the Twelfth Century to the French Revolution, with an Annotated Edition of the 1752 Catalogue (2014) Patronage, Production, and Transmission of Texts in Medieval and Early Modern Jewish Cultures, ed. by Esperanza Alfonso and Jonathan Decter (2014) Devotional Culture in Late Medieval England and Europe: Diverse Imaginations of Christ’s Life, edited by Stephen Kelly and Ryan Perry (2014) Matthew Cheung Salisbury, The Secular Liturgical Office in Late Medieval England (2015) From Hus to Luther: Visual Culture in the Bohemian Reformation (1380–1620), ed. by Kateřina Horníčková and Michal Šroněk (2016) Medieval Liège at the Crossroads of Europe: Monastic Society and Culture, 1000–1300, ed. by Steven Vanderputten, Tjamke Snijders, and Jay Diehl (2017) Episcopal Power and Local Society in Medieval Europe, 900–1400, ed. by Peter Coss, Chris Dennis, Melissa Julian-Jones, and Angelo Silvestri (2017) Saints of North­East England, 600–1500, ed. by Margaret Coombe, Anne Mouron, and Christiania Whitehead (2017) Tamás Karáth, Richard Rolle: The Fifteenth­Century Translations (2017) Late Medieval Devotional Compilations in England, ed. by Marleen Cré, Diana Denissen, and Denis Renevey (2020) Episcopal Power and Personality in Medieval Europe, 900–1480, ed. by Peter Coss, Chris Dennis, Melissa Julian-Jones, and Angelo Silvestri (2020) Inwardness, Individualization, and Religious Agency in the Late Medieval Low Countries: Studies in the Devotio Moderna and its Contents, ed. by Rijcklof Hofman, Charles Caspers, Peter Nissen, Mathilde van Dijk, and Johan Oosterman (2020)

In Preparation Wycliffism and Hussitism: Methods of Thinking, Writing, and Persuasion c. 1360–c. 1460, ed. by Kantik Ghosh and Pavel Soukup